View Full Version : Benefits of Socialism

05-12-2001, 06:29 AM
Public ownership of means of production of goods or services to be shared by all, socialism, arose as answer to the abuses of the industrial revolution and cartel unresponsiveness to public need. This was most prevalent in areas we now call public utilities. As an example, electricity providers refused to extend service to farmers. Water companies refused to extend services to new areas or suburbs. Almost all became regulated as monopolistic pricing was rampant.

We are in an energy crisis which is of corporate failure to provide. The international cartel is limiting crude oil production while wanting subsidies to acquire more. The cartel refuses to build refineries in order to enhance profit margins to drill for more of what they are limiting.

Conoco oil is located in Ponca City, Oklahoma. Not a bastion of left wing eco-wackos. Ponca Citians would love to have a few more refineries. The CEO says that to build more refineries will lower gas prices and therefore restrict their exploration program. While admitting their is more than enough oil, it is just that his company does not own it. This was very honest. And if you were a shareholder, music to your ears. For the consumer, we will screw you if we can.

In the past, the oil companies would not carry enough crude inventory so a national inventory was established for emergencies, which was helpful last summer to hit OPEC over the head with as they continue their eternal exercise in greed. I think we need the same thing now in energy production. Enough energy producing capacity to assure that monopolistic pricing and willful scarcity is blunted. Bush said he is sending 100 billion to some of us to buy gas with. Why not build a few refineries?

05-12-2001, 07:32 AM
Socialism is a wonderful concept. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Truly a noble concept and a perfect society.

Unfortunately, it fails whenever brought in contact with laziness, corruption, stupidity, avarice and incompetence.

i.e: people.

Living in the real world.

05-12-2001, 07:49 AM
Hmmmm Gaz
A lot like non-socialism, right?

05-12-2001, 08:04 AM


Capitalism on paper is a pure meritocracy. The harder you work, the more you get. You can truly haul yourself up by your own bootstraps. At least, that is how it works on paper.

Unfortunately, those same human frailties that doom Socialism also crush Capitalism in the real world.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

The enemy is human nature. The failings of people will corrupt any system of government.

Socialism is not viable in the real world, because you cannot motivate people to produce when they do not have to. Under a socialist system, you can coast. You can take more out of the system than you put in. As more and more people realize this fundamental flaw in the system, more of them coast. That is simply basic human nature. And then you have fewer and fewer people doing more and more of the work for those who coast.

Sound familiar? Does the term "Social Security" ring a bell?

In the real world, with venal, flawed human beings, I prefer a meritocracy, where the government is responsible for restricting and punishing those who abuse the system. In that system, the basic human faults of greed and lust for power will allow the unscrupulous to establish a monopoly and manipulate the markets to their own advantage. The "haves" can use the "have nots" to death. However, the intrusion of the State can prevent these abuses. Checks and balances can be built into the system to hinder misuse. Those who bypass the checks and balances can be punished after the fact.

Neither system is perfect, but in the real world, a meritocracy is far more workable than socialism.

Needs tangible benefits, not textbook benefits.

05-12-2001, 08:13 AM
My water is socialist. My airport is socialist. My golf course is socialist. My parks are socialist. My schools. Socialism is all about us. Many utililties are well regulated, ie at the whim of public direction. Arrowhead is socialist.

05-12-2001, 08:15 AM
Did not see the connection of lazy people and SS. To get SS you have to work to get payroll taxes to get it.

05-12-2001, 08:17 AM
My water is provided by a privately-owned company.

The golf courses are privately owned.

I do not own my airport.

I do not own my school.

I do not own the utility company.

Arrowhead is owned by a private company.

Perhaps you have a special definition of "socialist?"

Would not mind owning a chunk of Arrowhead.

05-12-2001, 08:22 AM

My point was that fewer workers are paying for more SS benefits. That is analogous to the situation when the workers in a socialist state discover that they get the same benefits whether they work their butts of or do the minimum required.

By the way, you are wrong on SS benefits. SS benefits are often paid to people who have never paid a dime into the system. That is why the system is facing bankruptcy unless it is "saved." And that is the major complaint many people have with the system. Instead of being a personal retirement account [as originally sold to the public], it has become a slush fund for distribution of government largess [with my money].

Making his analogies more user-friendly.

05-12-2001, 08:24 AM
Greed can be good. But the good is not based on greed. Or even merit. There is a question of who is meritorious. Is person who could not work because of polio less meritorious than a Chiefs QB. Are you born to meritorious race? Are you meritorious because you have a high IQ, or win the lottery. Or is it some neighbor that babysits for you in an emergency?

05-12-2001, 08:30 AM
My water is owned by the city, as are the airport, most golf courses, etc. SS money comes from payroll taxes, people who work, and there are non working disabled people and dependents of old people on it also. Some of the disabled worked before this condition as did many of the old people.
If your water is from a private source does not make my water the same as yours. I have not seen many jumbo jets land at private airports but glad you got a good one.
Basically, I disagree with your assumption that people are scum.

05-12-2001, 08:32 AM

I did not say that capitalism [a meritocracy] was perfect, I said it was preferable, given the limitations of the real world. Perfection is impossible when people are involved. You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

However, capitalism [a meritocracy] is a more viable system in the real world than socialism. You can restrict monopolistic practices. You cannot restrict laziness and you cannot legislate enthusiasm or patriotism.

Siding with the lesser of two evils

05-12-2001, 08:39 AM
and there are non working disabled people and dependents of old people on it also.

That is how SS got in the fix it is in. The government purchased more votes by extending benefits to those who did not earn them. Soon, there will not be enough workers to support the extended benefits.

I do not expect to see a dime of the money I have paid into SS. By the time I am ready to collect MY money, there will not be enough to go around. Step #1 will be means-testing.

"Surely those with incomes over $500,000 a year do not need Social Security. That money should go to the poor retired. It is only fair. Think of the children."

And we will all agree that someone taking in $500K a year doesn't need a SS check.

Then comes $250K.
Then $125K.
Inevitably, the "fair" target will catch up with my income.

I have paid into that fund for nearly 30 years and I will get nothing from it.

Oh yeah, that is "fair."

Sidetracked for a rant on SS and "fairness."

05-12-2001, 08:43 AM
Basically, I disagree with your assumption that people are scum.

I really wish you would stop misquoting me, oleman47. It is really irritating.

People are people. They are prejudiced, greedy, slothful, selfish and self-centered. They are also kind, generous, faithful, honest and trustworthy.

Some people are scum, but People are not scum. They are just people. Fallible and far, far short of perfection.

Showing his tolerant side at the moment.

05-12-2001, 08:54 AM
Monopolies cannot exist in a free market. Monopolies can only exist if the socialist government restricts competition through tax and regulatory policy. Capitalism, as socialists describe it, can only exist where socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism have destroyed the free market and made it impossible for new businesses to compete against the large corporations in making a particular product like electricity or providing a particular service like oil and gas production.

Government ownership of the education system would certainly qualify as socialist policy which has failed miserably, unless you consider mini-Somalia's a socialist success story. Government ownership of massive portions of politically powerless rural areas of western states is a socialist policy which has failed miserably, unless you think burning up billions of board feet of marketable timber every year is good for the economy or environment of these politically powerless rural areas.

Bob Dole
05-12-2001, 09:39 AM
"...to each according to his need."

Bob Dole needs a big screen TV (failing eyesight, you know.)

Bob Dole needs a new car. (The neighbor across the street has a new one. Bob Dole needs to keep up.)

Bob Dole needs a larger, newer house. (It's just not fair that Bob Dole has to drive his 6 year-old car past nice new homes every day.)

Bob Dole needs to eat ribeyes rather than sirloins. (All that extra chewing simply exhausts Bob Dole.)

As previously stated...Socialism is a wunnermuss concept until you introduce human beings into the equation. Especially these days in an "I want it and I want it now!" society. Or is it the "<b>They</b> want it so <b>you</b> give it to them now" society. Bob Dole gets confused...

Actual Question: "You didn't finish high school, you don't have a job and already have 2 children. Why did you get pregnant again?"

Actual Answer: "I wanted a new television."

Money for nothing and the chicks are free.

Bob Dole helps when Bob Dole can. Bob Dole especially likes to help others help themselves. Bob Dole is d@mned tired of working Bob Dole's posterior off so some idiot/lazy turd/unfortunate soul can drive a newer car, live in a nicer house and eat better as it sits now. Bob Dole doesn't see a turn even more toward Socialism as an improvement.

If Bob Dole is going to give you money for food (food stamps), Bob Dole wants to determine your food "needs," and you can bet your sweet boopie that Hagen Daaz and ribeyes ain't on the list.

You have a family of X members of Y gender and Z age, you get vouchers for A $$ of meat, B $$ of poultry, C $$ of fruits and vegetables, etc. that meet the nutritional needs of your family. Figure it out: Ice cream is a "treat" -- not a "need" -- and there are a lot of people not spending Bob Dole's dime that don't get those treats (Bob Dole's childhood family included).

Cable television isn't a <i>need</i>. (And maybe you ought to be reading a book instead of staring at the ion bombardment tube, anyway. Maybe you'd learn something...like language skills.) Functional air conditioning in the car isn't a <i>need</i>. That pack of smokes? Not a need either. Bob Dole is really sorry you sneezed, but a sneeze does not warrant a visit to the ER. (You know. Dr. ER, your primary care physician.) You want Bob Dole to pay for your college? Perhaps you should take a class on washing your hair/body/clothes and speaking proper English first. Then we'll talk.

Or is that a violation of the idiot/lazy turd/unfortunate soul's rights?

Okay, maybe Bob Dole got off on a rant here and strayed from the topic. Please allow Bob Dole to digress...

Perhaps Uncle Sammy could use the money to seed private enterprise that would compete with the utilities (or whatever) that are tightening the thumbscrews. Bob Dole really doesn't think more government is the answer.

Heck...use some of those government Y2K hires (that are currently working on more bureaucrat created crap so they weren't "displaced" when the Y2K scare ended) to target something that's actually useful for some other purpose than creating more crap. A product, perhaps?

05-12-2001, 09:52 AM
Wow. Bravo, Bob Dole!

05-12-2001, 09:55 AM
I prefer my definition of Socialism, as practiced and not the theory of one philosopher, which tends to be in many dictionaries. But the concept of need is a part of the equation. If your energy or water company refuses to supply you and your community, it has been the American way to tell them to take flying leap and do our own thing. We need gas. There is all kinds of oil around, just need to get it refined? Why let some guy hoping for little more increase in stock value to round out his stock option to some even ten million figure while you and your company go under. Why not band to together and form a more perfect union of need and build your own damn refinery. We use the gov't to do this as an organizational go between.

05-12-2001, 10:00 AM
If all can remember, the Brits were sucker punching the colonists before they said no! You all getting waylaid by mumbo jumbo. Sit there and let 'em hit, oooh it feels so good.

05-12-2001, 10:28 AM

Clearly you need to give us your personal definition of Socialism, since it it clearly not the classical version tought in school.

Has developed his own personal definition of "short" if anyone is interested.

05-12-2001, 10:40 AM
What I have seen on the BBS, is that anything operated by the guvment is socialist. My own dictionary uses the means of production, and yours is more like mine when defining communism. Some are based on the definition of utilitarianism, the greatest good for greatest number. For this reason I did offer a rather long list of examples of current and past socialism that has taken place with full support of the public. A public utility is a perfect example, which might be so well regulated as to be no longer classed as private or like our water company, was a water company but bought out and now owned and run by the city. I personally do not consider SS socialist but owning a water company, ie means of production as qualifying for this label. However, if people want to call all guvment actions, socialist, no problem with me. Most socialist guments lead the world in humane qualities.

05-12-2001, 10:49 AM
I saw the title of this thread and knew instantly it was Oleman authored.

I was quite prepared to shower this thread with my running dog capitalist theory and philosphy but I see Gaz is doing an excellent job. Bravura Gaz. Us libertarian leaning conservatives must stick together.

I will only add a quote, hopefully quoted correctly, from one of my favourite philospher/statesmen:

<i>Capitalism and democracy are the worst systems in existance. Except when compared to all the others.</i>

Winston Churchil

05-12-2001, 10:58 AM
What I have seen on the BBS, is that anything operated by the guvment is socialist.

Dude, it is hard to have a reasoned debate when overzealous hyperbole like that is dumped on the table. The rest of the post is not taken seriously after such a ludicrous statement.

Socialism is placing all resources into a community bucket to be doled out by the government to the citizens in an equitable fashion. The resources are owned by the government, as are the methods of production and distribution.

Socialism would be wonderful if all people were hard working, industrious, honest and trustworthy. Although people are not scum, they are not generally hard working, industrious, honest and trustworthy. Some folks certainly are, but there are more than enough of the lazy, slothful, dishonest and untrustworthy to sink Socialism.

Somewhere between the two extremes.

05-12-2001, 11:17 AM
Yoswif, raiderhader, and many others have used that definition, so why the rant. I went on to define exactly what I meant. As I did in my original post.

No one answers the question of refineries? Just rants.

05-12-2001, 11:35 AM
On the solvency of SS, just raise the cap a little and don't spend the surpluses and it will work and would have worked. This is not rocket science. What is hurting SS, is people like Bush who will spend the surplus then say it is broke. Ala Reagan.

05-12-2001, 12:24 PM

There is no surplus. There is only overtaxation. The government has no money, so it cannot have a surplus. That is not the governmet’s money, it is mine.

SS is overextended because the government gave benefits to people who did not deserve it.

Does not want to hear about the “surplus,” just wants his money back.

05-12-2001, 12:33 PM
I have been saying for years that the Liberal Leadership of the Democratic Party believes in Socialism ~ They just won't publically admitt it.

Kudos to you Oleman for at least being honest about your agenda. If only your political party would be as honest...

They are dishonest about their intentions because they know the American people would never embrace Socialism ~ therefor, they lie.

What is more reveiling, however, is the justification for this deceit ~ 'The American people aren't smart enough to understand what's best for them. Therefor we will use subterfuge rather than openly proclaiming Socialism.'

The one element of Socialism that hasn't been discussed here is it's arrogance. Somebody (ie. the government) has to make a decision on people's abilities and needs. For anyone to think that they are better able to make these decisions than the people effected is pure arrogance.

Any executive caliber businessman knows that in almost all cases, government regulations serve to limit competition. If my company has already established market share, then I (sometimes secretly) lobby and support more regulation. This makes it much more costly for a competitor to open their doors and take my customers.

If you truly want to open the marketplace for more competition, then start rolling back current gov't regulations.

trying to talk about the real world...

05-12-2001, 12:38 PM
I find it interesting a defender of socialism and socialist policies would presume to know what my definition of socialist policies and socialism is. Nothing like that good old socialist tactic of stereotyping anyone who opposes socialist policies and socialism as someone who hates government. I absolutely love a government that protects the rights of individual human beings, property owners, and communities from the hatred, greed, and corruption associated with socialist policies and socialism.
My definition of socialist policies and principles are policies and principles supported by mainstream socialist politicians, mainstream socialist organizations, and established socialist political parties.
My definition of socialism is where policies and principles supported by mainstream socialist politicians, mainstream socialist organizations, and established socialist parties have been imposed and the people do not have a non socialist political option or non socialist media option.
Why aren't policies and principles supported by the only self described socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders (I), Vermont considered socialist policies and principles?
Why aren't the policies and principles supported by mainstream socialist organizations like Democratic Socialists of America:


considered socialist policies and principles?

Why aren't the policies and principles historically supported by Socialist Labor Party of America:


established in 1890, considered socialist policies and principles?

If K-12 education is a service, then the socialist government has virtual total control over the availability and quality of that service.

If the forests are the means of production for forest products, instead of the production of fuel for forest fires as is the current policy, then the socialist policy of government ownership of massive areas of forest land is socialist government ownership of the means of production.

05-12-2001, 12:47 PM
Funny, I haven't seen many Americans rushing to different countries to benefit from their socialist medicines and health plans.

Of course, I have seen 7 Canadians, 3 Mexicans, a Brit, and a German all in our facility over the last month for scheduled operations. I wonder why they come to our country?

05-12-2001, 12:48 PM
Maybe they don't want to wait until they've been dead for six months before getting the treatment they need.

05-12-2001, 12:51 PM
LOL, But Tim, it is SOCIALISM, therefore it MUST work.

Socialism is a great concept, for lazy people who want to live off of others' hard work.

05-12-2001, 12:57 PM
Russ, I remember hearing or reading that in Canada, heart patients must wait around 2 years for live-saving operations. Is that true?

I guess this would have the advantage of shortening the wait for the others when everyone in line ahead of them dies...

I do think doctors are way, way overpaid. But socialism isn't the answer to any problem.

05-12-2001, 01:03 PM
So you guys can get the argument straight!

Historically, in this country and others, when capitalism failed to provide a service or product of basic need, of universal benefit to the group, it has authorized gov't to provide. This may be Arrowhead stadium, a public golf course, Rural electricfication, bridges, water and sewage facilites, tornado sirens, airports, etc.

We are short of refineries and captalism has failed to provide a basic need, energy. Since they are not, we can as a people build out own, tell them to suck an egg. Why take this crap from them. Our forfathers sure as hell didn't.

You guys can hide out from the problem and defend semantical windmills, but we can build refineries, we can buy oil, there is nothing against that in our laws or in our bibles.. I would think some of you rugged individualists would see that letting some guy waiting out his holding period on a stock option deprive you what you can easily provide without him is more the American Way than kissing some corporate butt.

05-12-2001, 01:05 PM
Tim - When Canada runs out of healthcare money at the end of every year (which they have for several decades now) most crucial operations are put on hold as being too expensive. Special Dispensation can be given, but you have to earn it with form after form, and the money <b>must</b> be allocated from another government program before the dispensation is given.

Frankly, I believe in standard good old fair economics. If one doc is charging too much, another will earn his business by charging less.

Besides, I would rather have a doctor charging me too much and me being able to pay my bill six months later than having a doctor never operate on me and my family enjoying the savings of healthcare and burial expenses because the state covered them.

05-12-2001, 01:07 PM
Seems like you have a plan, Donald.

Go out, get a loan, start a refinery and start enjoying all those great tax breaks you keep telling us about.

Good luck

05-12-2001, 01:07 PM
Only Donald would refer to medical care and human lives as 'semantic windmills'.

05-12-2001, 01:11 PM
Russ, this is by no means an area of expertise for me, but again, it seems I've heard that one of the biggest reasons medical expenses are so high is because the AMA severelly restricts the number of applicants admitted to medical school, thereby effectively keeping the amount of doctors small (as opposed to lawyers, for example, who are graduating law school at a rate which far exceeds the need for new ones).

It seems that the best answer would be to somehow neuter the AMA, increase the number of practicing doctors, and that would have the effect of increasing competition and driving down medical costs.

05-12-2001, 01:16 PM
If our forefathers had 5% of the list of things we can,t do as you guys we wouldn't be here, there would have. No industrial revolution, no moon shot, nothing --just people saying we can't do this, we can't do that. We can have health care, or whatever, we really can. If some HMO'S want to screw us we do not have to bend over and gush how good it was.
Trained corporate puppets. Throwing away their freedom.

05-12-2001, 01:23 PM
Tim - You mean eliminate the Government approved AMA?

Excellent idea. The less government the better.

Donald - If socialism is so much better, why are you not living in a socialist country? I hear France needs a new Jerry Lewis. (I am sorry about this comment, but a corporation has their hand up my butt and threw their voice)

05-12-2001, 01:27 PM

I'm all about capitalism... but the problem comes when "new" competition cannot enter the marketplace.

Right now, the oil companies are all doing well so they aren't competing amongst themselves enough... and the lines of distribution are so tightly held that it is virtually impossible for new players to enter the market...

The worst part is that I don't see an answer (even with govt. intervention... which I despise the thought of).


05-12-2001, 01:30 PM

My feelings exactly on the AMA ... I have alot of friends in medicine and I still feel that the AMA is a complete ethics nightmare... one of our great govt. sponsered monopolies!


05-12-2001, 01:30 PM
Kyle - While it sometimes takes awhile to even the field, it always evens on a fair market. Eventually someone else will have the bucks and enter the scene. Whether it be a bank, an individual, or another nation.

05-12-2001, 01:32 PM
Kyle - Our docs have several Anagramistic explanations for the letters AMA, most off which will be bleeped if I repeat them.

05-12-2001, 01:35 PM
Yeah, the oil companies have got us by the balls. Government intervention will only screw it up worse. I guess we wait until big oil executives grow souls (which will never happen), or just stop using their product to the point when prices come down. I've cut my driving down as much as I can, and I'm giving serious consideration to getting a more fuel-efficient car (which sucks, because I love the one I have).

I don't want the money I earned stolen from me by the government or big business. Of course, that's kind of the way it is. I have no easy answers. Guess I'll be driving a lot less.

05-12-2001, 01:42 PM
I just finished watching a program on the new Rosen Car. It was absolutely fascinating.

It uses airplane turbine technology to exponentially increase rpms of the flywheel and virtually uses drops of gas where gallons were used.

They expect to offer the engine to only one of the big three auto makers and let them have the advantage of the market, temporarily. All three have expressed a huge desire to be the one.

Thus the free market edge moves on.

This was written in 1996

This in 97

And this one even more recently

Each article has raised more and more interest from the Big 3

Harold Rosen is the modern day Edison.

05-12-2001, 01:51 PM
How does ending the socialist tax and regulatory policies and ending socialist judicial activism policies which protect large corporations from competition help the large corporations which give huge sums of money to the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party to keep these socialist protections in place? It seems to me the supporters of socialist policies and the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party are the corporate lackeys.

05-12-2001, 01:55 PM
Thank goodness that most capitalists aren't hopeless do nothings. I think if any state or city built one refinery we would have many all across the land. This is a set up and one crack in the dam and then the deluge.

05-12-2001, 01:56 PM
Russ, that sounds great, but the damn thing will probably be so expensive that only people who are unaffected by gas prices will be able to afford to buy one. What a cruel irony.

I'll have to check those links.

05-12-2001, 01:58 PM
If we are going to spend billions on SDI why not build a few refineries just for defense purposes. Might be handy to have some gas during war.

05-12-2001, 02:02 PM
Austin Chief
How do the backward Europeans have energy and we don't.

05-12-2001, 02:11 PM

The comment was a bit tongue in cheek... I DO live there!

...but honestly they have energy (which is very expensive) and nothing to use it!!! The big difference is that they don't USE much energy there.


05-12-2001, 02:17 PM
Why not just get rid of the socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies that prevent a good small businessperson from starting up their own refinery that could compete with the big corporations? Since the massive failure of the socialist government experiment in the energy business in Washington state, such socialist experiments like a community building a refinery would never get the money to start such a socialist project.

05-12-2001, 02:21 PM
Yeah, I know they tax the heck out of it to force conservation and reduce balance of payment deficits, and I guess North Sea helped.

But I'll ask you. If all you needed to do was build some refineries to have gas, and the oil companies said no, what would the Europeans do?

05-12-2001, 02:26 PM
Anyone who wants to build a refinery around here is welcome, particularly the small towns which are going under. They would get tax breaks, free donuts and coffee for life, and change the town name. The Chinese would even be welcome. Beiijng, Kansas

05-12-2001, 02:47 PM
In Europe there is an amazing amount of acceptance for authority whether right or wrong...

Large corporations, govt., invading armies...

I often ask people in Europe about different aspects of life that I think are ridiculous... and the most often answer to "why?" is a simple "because, that's the way it is here..."

They don't have a very "fight the power" attitude...
at least not in Spain. (not counting the Basques)


05-12-2001, 03:19 PM
That would make this the only "NIMBY" free zone in America. I live so far out in the sticks, it's not on most maps. But a handful of "NIMBY"s raised such a stink, they got a garbage to energy incenerator project shut down. And this is in one of the most economically depressed counties in the state.

05-12-2001, 03:57 PM
Was that the one where a few states were going to ship their garbage there and someone figured up how many trucks it would be and the new roads, etc. or a local deal. They have toyed off and on here about doing our own garbage power deal since we are 30% higher than anyone else due to using nuclear power. Which is bad for business. They sued the power company and when it looked like they might lose they sold out to another and for some reason that nullified the suit. In the seventies, a relative of mine was on a commission to study building a coal gas plant with a coal pipeline from Wyoming. Used to be six oil refineries in the area but now only four.
This is very conservative country, but there is no love for energy companies due to past history. I guess it shows.

05-13-2001, 12:25 AM
Just to clear up a minor point of contention from early in this thread, the landlord for Arrowhead Stadium and, indeed, the entire Truman Sports Complex is the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, a Commission of Missouri State Government that is Jackson County's authorized agent. The financing of the stadium was mostly done by voter-approved county bonds ($43 million in general obligation bonds), though the Royals and Chiefs did kick in about $10 million in donations in order to get some upgrades (e.g. replaced the endzone bleachers with the kind of seats used elsewhere in the stadium). I think there was also another $20 million or so in revenue bonds that got issued and that were subsequently retired by sales tax revenues generated at the ballparks, but I'm not sure about that.

Arrowhead is not owned by a private company. The Chiefs lease it from the citizens of Jackson County, Missouri.

Here's a story from the Star on Arrowhead's 25th anniversary that describes, among other things, the context for the bond election in 1967.

Here's a chapter from Missouri's Blue Book that describes the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority:

05-13-2001, 08:13 AM
If I had labelled the thread, "Benefits of voter initiative", would you have seen the same response to the very same actions proposed?

05-13-2001, 09:38 AM
I am a Senior at Heidelberg American High School in Heidelberg, Germany. Yesterday, two friends and I went to a Frankfurt Galaxy (NFL Europe) game. We got their using public transportation, riding the train to Frankfurt (which cost us 40 marks, which is about $20, for a round trip ticket for the three of us. This was a special weekend rate.) We then took the strassenbahn (tram) to the stadium. There was no hassle, and the 40 marks we spent on the trip is less than we would have had to spend on gas had we driven.

In Germany, public transportation can take you almost anywhere that you need to go. You don't even need a car, and I if I was not going back to the States at the end of the year, I wouldn't have even bothered getting my license. Total socialism is idiotic. But in moderation, socialism does have its uses.

p.s. During the game I made sure to watch Dante Hall in particular, who is now playing wide receiver for the Scottish Claymores. He didn't impress me much. He fumbled a kickoff return in the first quarter and dropped some key passes. Frankfurt ended up beating Scotland 27-17.

05-13-2001, 10:54 AM
I live in Idaho County, Idaho where the socialist government of the United States owns roughly 9,000 square miles of the means of production of forest products, forest land. What the socialist government of the United States hasn't raped and burned, they've turned into a feeding ground for the bears and wolves, decimating the counties economy. There are no rain forests in Idaho County. All my life (47 years), the socialist government of the United States with their socialist central planning have managed the forests in Idaho County as if they were rain forests on the coast of Washington or Oregon and it has been a total disaster. Every summer we choke on smoke from forest fires because it seem's the socialist government of the United States would rather manage our forests to have maximum fuel loads so they can get maximum polution when our forests burn. Every summer we watch these socialist government bureaucrats milk every dime of taxpayers money they can out of these forest fires. The socialist government of the United States gives their socialist government bureaucrats a bonus if the fire is out of control. I've even heard a top socialist government bureaucrat tell two subordinates "the first thing you do when you get on a fire is grab hold of the cash register." That's why the fires on land owned by the socialist government of the United States generally burn until the snow flies. And our semi-arid forests will burn in the future just like they have in the past so we can either use the forest land to produce forest products or use the forest land to produce fuel for forest fires. The socialist central planners in the socialist government of the United States prefer to use the means of production owned by the socialist government of the United States to produce fuel for forest fires rather than usefull forest products like toilet paper and disposable diapers.

05-13-2001, 11:14 AM
I am sure yoswif is correct. If the forest is cut down there will not be forest fires.

05-13-2001, 11:20 AM
The project was ideally located near port facilities (75 miles) and along the major north/south highway in the state. A handfull of "NIMBY"s threatened so many lawsuits over airborne particles, the project was moved to a much less feasable location, logistically.

05-13-2001, 11:30 AM
Very good Oleman *performing a golf clap for you* You very adroitly ignored what Yosif said and ridiculed him with a blanket sterotype comment. Gephart and Daschle would be proud.

It's been proven over and over that selective culling of timber in a forest makes the forest healthier, cuts down the risk of fires, improves the general eco-system, and perhaps provides a job or two for those souls who live nearby.

Of course such a thing would run counter to the central planning of big government so it must be wrong.

05-13-2001, 11:35 AM
Sorry for the forest quip, just couldn't resist, too much coffee, I know the logging questions are far more complicated.

05-13-2001, 11:38 AM
As I remember the project I was talking about was to be in Nebraska, remote Neb. and the expansion of highways, bridges, and remoteness made it too costlly, plus there was a sub-surface water problem that farmers who were mostly irrigated rose up against.

05-13-2001, 12:36 PM
If our semi-arid evergreen forests are thinned periodically like the residents of my county and my state want, there won't be near as much pollution when these semi-arid evergreen forests burn as all semi-arid evergreen forests eventually do. But the socialist central planners you apparently support would rather clearcut and burn large acreages or just burn large acreage's of our semi-arid evergreen forests instead of periodic thinning to reduce fuel loads and produce wood fiber for things like homes, toilet paper, and disposable diapers.

Why am I not surprised that a strong supporter of socialist government policies would want honest, decent, hardworking Americans who live in counties and states that overwhelmingly oppose these socialist government policies to suffer the pollution and decimated economy associated with these socialist policies?

Why am I not surprised that a strong supporter of socialist policies would rather see billions of dollars worth of wood fiber turned into air pollution than usefull forest products like homes, toilet paper, and disposable diapers?

Wasting valuable resources, polluting the environment, and decimating local economies is a common outcome of socialist central planning. Look at all the pollution caused by the socialist central government in the U.S.S.R. Why isn't the smoke caused by the socialist government of the United State's forest mis-management policies as bad as the radiation from Cherynobal?

05-13-2001, 01:48 PM
What socialist policies do you think I support. I do support roads, airports, Social Security, Medicare, some others. But I am not sure our definitions of Socialist are any where near the same.

Zebedee DuBois
05-13-2001, 03:02 PM
My nephew (graduating HS this spring) was accepted into West Point for next year. He and his father went to visit the campus, and when they came back home they found a letter informing him he was also accepted into the Air Force Acadamy in Colorado. I think he has decided to turn down West Point and go to the Air Force Acadamy.

(The tie-in to socialism, is that all us taxpayers will be paying his tuition, plus a stipend. In return he will serve his country for five years after graduation.(of course we will still be paying his salary). I have no complaints about that particular bit of socialism, and am proud of my sisters son. I am a little jealous, since I don't think you all will be helping with my kids tuition.)

05-13-2001, 03:24 PM
Congratulations, Zeb. Your family should be proud of him!

05-13-2001, 06:24 PM
Zeb, that is anything but socialism. Your nephew in exchange for an excellent education agrees to serve time in a job, defense of his country in this case. That is not socialism, that is apprenticeship. The difference amounts to a chasm.

Be proud of him. I'm sure he'll serve with honour and distinction.

05-14-2001, 02:36 AM
Alright Gaz, I'll bite. Whats your definition of "short"?

05-14-2001, 06:26 AM
Under 5'6" of course.

I can tailor a definition with the best of 'em.

Tall by definition.

05-14-2001, 06:40 AM
[quote] roads, airports, Social Security, Medicare[quote]

Roads are not Socialist. Roads are a proper function of any government. They are paid for by taxes collected from the public and built by private industry paid by the State. Not even close to Socialism.

Airports are also not Socialist. Go to the airport. Wander through one and see all the opportunities to spend money. If an airport were a Socialist construct, I could go to the airport and use the services without paying for it because I already own it. This is another gross mischaracterization of Socialism.

Social Security. It is indeed a Socialist concept, but has been twisted by elected officials until it is nothing more than government largesse exchanged for votes. Need senior citizen votes? Expand senior benefits. Need minority votes? Expand minority benefits. A fine Socialist idea corrupted by the two-party system.

Medicare. This is insurance paid for by the State. Insurance is certainly not a Socialist concept. In a Socialist state, there is no need for insurance. If you need medication, the medical section of the state simply gives you the prescription.

Showing his head the brick wall again.

05-14-2001, 07:10 AM
Exactly, if you can build an airport why not a refinery?

05-14-2001, 07:14 AM
The State could build a refinery, or it could wait for private industry to build a refinery. Given the morass of red tape, regulation, environmental restrictions, zoning laws and other assorted obstacles, it would be foolish for the State to enter those murky, treacherous waters.

On the other hand, the price of gas is not yet high enough to make it worthwhile for private industry. But be patient. It will get there.

Knows he can count on the private sector when the profit emerges.

05-14-2001, 07:30 AM
According to New York Times, Exxon stated that eco laws were not the reason for not building refineries, they wouldn't mind some changes, but has nothing to do with decisions to build or not build refineries. There are some other oil companies, Conoco for one, who have said the same thing.
I don't believe there is a crisis. I think one refinery built by one state will produce 100's of new refineries. There is every indication that supply and demand will overcome politics and manipulation. There are private reports out by investment bankers urging clients to liguidate oil stocks because of the glut of oil which is only going to get worse.

05-14-2001, 07:40 AM
I think the oil crisis is a ploy to get gov't aid to take away risk factors. Particularly for the coal industry.

Baby Lee
05-14-2001, 08:13 AM
Thank goodness that most capitalists aren't hopeless do nothings

The difference is basic behaviorism. Actions which are postively rewarded are more likely to be repeated. Actions which are negatively rewarded [ie, punished] are more likely to be extinguished.

In capitalism, industry is rewarded and sloth is punished.
In socialism, sloth is rewarded and industry, while not necessarily punished, is not rewarded in par with the effort expended.

The things to which you refer, oleman, are largely large civic works projects that in general [IMO] must meet 3 criteria; 1) they serve the entire community, 2) they do not lend themselves to competition, and 3) they facilitate or enhance the efficient operation of the remainder of the capitalist system.

For example, airports and stadiums [stadii??]. A community needs one big airport/stadium [or two or three for the BIG cities], not an airport on every streetcorner. Pitting "Joe's Airport" against "Larry's airport" risks huge inefficiencies [ie, if Larry's goes out of business, that's a much bigger deal than a Hardees closing], same for stadiums. Finally, the stadiums and airports generate capitalistic action, more efficient travel, tourist destinations, leisure opportunities, . . general revenue generation.

If those three criteria are not met, ie, IF it will not generate revenue, IF only a small portion of the community will not benefit, or if this is an area suited to competition, then the proposal is rightly met with a jaundiced eye.

Baby Lee
05-14-2001, 08:21 AM
if you can build an airport why not a refinery?

you could say that about anything, if the government can build an airport, why not a fast food chain? if the government can build an airport, why not a shopping mall? if the government can build an airport, why not a line of automobiles?

But one needs to gauge the effiiciencies of the free market already in place. As said below, competing airports popping up everywhere around a single city is not an efficient allocation of resources. Since the city needs one, no more no less, it is proper that it has a hand in its placement and operation. Entry into and exit from the refinery market is much more flexible [ie, startup costs are less, if present management goes under, its much easier to find new management, production will, for the life of the supply of oil, expand to fill the new capabilities, etc.].

05-14-2001, 08:31 AM
I agree. My premise was that capitalism, which I believe is the only viable system, is not a religion nor does it fit all situations. It is an imperfect solution for some situations. I used examples where when captalism failed to step up to the plate, society has and could solve the problem. Generally, capitalists get the message.
What they want is a guarrantee of no risk, and in a capitalistic system that is ineffiencient. If they want no risk then it is better for public ownership to keep it responsible. Oil may become like water. Where everyone got fed up with someone owning a water hole and screwing everyone else.

Lightning Rod
05-14-2001, 08:33 AM
The socialistic “concept” is very appealing. To look at the GNP of the US, it is ridicules that some people do without the necessities of life. I can also see some of the fallacies of capitalism. Many of the truly wealthy of the country did not become so from hard work, but from deceit and manipulation, or often the old fashioned way of belonging to the “lucky sperm club”. While I feel all the above is true one can still build themselves up from nothing in this country. I see it every day. Build a better mousetrap work your *** off and you too may become wealthy. As I stated above I think socialism as a concept is noble, in reality it distributes poverty, not wealth. As the Soviet workers were fond of saying. “ The pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work.” I consider myself a pretty decent person but , if I am honest as to the motivating factor in my actions it can generally be traced back to, (What is in it for me?)

05-14-2001, 08:43 AM
That's the general impetus of liberalism today.

It's not about making the world a better place anymore. I feel bad, so why shouldn't you? Spread the misery through legislation.

You worked hard for your money, but your neighbors didn't. Rather than giving your neighbor a job, we'll take away your money, so that you know a little better how your neighbor feels.

Socialism doesn't work because it's not natural. Capitalism is - period. It's the perfect man-made representation of evolution - Socio-economic Darwinism. Socialism attempts to inject that artificial "survival of the not-so-fit" element into the system, and all it's doing is delaying the inevitable.

05-14-2001, 09:01 AM
Labels, labels.

If one capitalist is screwing all the other capitalists why suck your thumb and take it because your ideology. Capitalism, above all, is practical. Supply/demand forces could care less about liberalism, facism, agarianism, mercantilism, etc. But capitalism is not perfect in all cases and situations and is very subject to abuse in monopolistic situations and this has been known and dealt with since the industrial revolution. If big oil wants to throw a tantrum and hurt everyone, everyone has a right under captalism to fight back. It is artificial to say we cannot, for this is just as much a part of supply/semand as any slogan.

05-14-2001, 09:59 AM
IMO, socialist policies and principles are policies and principles supported by mainstream socialist politicians like U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders (I), Vermont, policies and principles supported by mainstream socialist organizations like Democratic Socialists of America, and policies and principles supported by well established socialist political parties like the Socialist Labor Party of America, established in 1890 making it nearly as old and, if you look at the policies and principles they've supported since their inception, at least as influential as the Republican Party.

IMO, socialism is where you have a one party political system devoted to protecting policies and principles of mainstream socialist politicians, mainstream socialist organizations, and established socialist political parties combined with a socialist press which fails to question one party socialist rule or the failure of policies and principles supported by mainstream socialist politicians, mainstream socialist organizations, and established socialist political parties.

I consider myself a small "L" libertarian because of my support for non partisan elections which probably puts me somewhere to the left (or right?) of mainstream libertarian politicians, mainstream libertarian organizations, and established libertarian political parties.

05-14-2001, 10:29 AM
The socialist government of the United States has already built a refinery. It's an oil shale refinery in a place called Parachute, Colorado. Authorized and engineered during the Carter administration and built during the Reagan administration at a cost to taxpayers of about $1 billion 1980 dollars, this monument to the socialist government of the United States' experience in the oil and energy business has not produced a single barrel of anything, to my knowledge. I worked on the project for about 15 months and collected a ton of taxpayers money but I think that taxpayer money could have been put to a much better use than an oil shale refinery. As far as failed socialist government run energy projects, WPPSS, fairly named "whoops", cost the taxpayers of Washington state billions and went belly up without producing anything.

05-14-2001, 10:49 AM
Shale, at a price is viable, but that project was to create more primary sources which soon came out of the woodshed all over the place. The conversion of shale was new technology. There is no problem with refinery technology.

The Germans built plants that converted coal to gas during WWII, so that could come back. And natural gas can run cars, like all our police cars here.

The enegry crisis is a hoax. Steps are in place in the free market to alleviate it but the current scenario is an attempt to get a risk free milking of the consumer for some time to come..

05-14-2001, 11:11 AM

Do you really think that the Bush administration gives any more of rat's *** about us than Clinton did?

Get real...all politicians, whether Conservative or Liberal, serve THEMSELVES and THEIR FRIENDS. That's what rich and powerful people do. Regardless of whether they can change things or not, they won't, because they want to continue to be RICH AND POWERFUL.

Continue to blame Bush for everything, it won't do any good. Because he's not the cause of the problem, just a symptom.

05-14-2001, 11:29 AM
Bush is president, Clinton is gone. I am not trying to balance out criticism. This energy thing is a hoax, we should fight it for it is very important to our lives. It may not be as revolting as having undefined sex in the oval office but means a heck of lot more. Clinton was not anti-business and got much money from them and will continue. I think it is one mil a month now and going up. I think the Clinton anti-trust, or lack thereof, was a disaster that is already bearing fruit. But he was fiscally conservative on deficits and that was very good. We will miss this out of Bush who regards deficits as a way to strangle programs he dislikes but can't say he does.

05-14-2001, 01:04 PM
Fluor Corp., a large construction and engineering company, made hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars off this failed socialist government of the United States oil shale project. What's the difference between corparate welfare socialism and social welfare socialism? Taking money from someone who has earned it, taxpayers or consumers, and giving it to someone who hasn't, corporate welfare socialism is the same as social welfare socialism. Beneficiaries of the social welfare system (social welfare system defined as government spending authorized only by the general welfare clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) are like large corporations getting taxpayer money for deficient or unneeded products (shale oil and moon rocks) or getting protection from competition by way of socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies.

Why would large corporations give so much money to the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party if they wanted free markets instead of corporate welfare socialism? Why is the corporate owned and controlled socialist press so supportive of the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party and corporate welfare socialism if the large corporations want free markets instead of corporate welfare socialism?

Consumers cannot be "milked" in a free market, only in a market skewed by socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies. Taxpayers and consumers can obviously be "milked" of trillions of dollars by a one party socialist government combined with a socialist press devoted to protecting the one party socialist government and socialist policies and principles including corporate welfare socialism.

05-14-2001, 01:12 PM
Ole, since your complaints and reference to socialism seem to be aimed at the energy shortage, I thought the following link was appropriate.


05-14-2001, 01:34 PM
There was no energy crisis under Clinton, hence no policy to help those who are screwing us.

05-14-2001, 01:59 PM

Sorry, but you're resorting to pure partisanism.

Currently, I'm paying less per gallon than I was at this time last year, so if this is a "crisis" last year CERTAINLY was so. Last time I checked, Bill Clinton was president.

The reason you can blame Clinton/Gore is because the price of gas is due to a lack of supply of the so-called "cleaner alternative", the government-madated "cleaner air" fuel. I know this, because I live in an area where those blended fuels (ethanol particularly) are more available, and they cost $.25 less a gallon than lower octane gas.

If anyone is getting a special deal from the government, it's the blended fuel producers, not the traditional oil companies...

05-14-2001, 02:10 PM
I was just curious as to where you were buying gas...here in NCMO its either the same or 2 cents HIGHER to buy ethanol. I don't understand, corn is nearly worthless on the market, but gasoline made with corn isn't cheaper????

FWIW I usually try to buy the ethanol to help local farm economy, it seems to run fine in my vehicles, but I know some had trouble with it in the past.

wishing my car would run on flatulance...

05-14-2001, 03:05 PM
The only "crisis" is socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies are threatened for the purpose of providing a freer marketplace and therefore, more supply and lower prices. Of course, the socialists naturally support the socialist policies that restrict supplies, protects the market share, and the profits of large corporations. If the socialists didn't protect their beloved large corporations, they wouldn't be able to demogogue about the large corporations making huge profits because of the socialist policies. When the large corporations start pumping large sums of money into the Libertarian Party instead of the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party, I'll believe they want a free market economy instead of an economy rigged for their benefit by the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party.

05-14-2001, 05:02 PM
You are one my favorite football analysts on the BBS. Within your rhetoric, I think I agree, if you are saying the corps run the show. I don/t consider the corps Socialist, but if you are talking about the marriage between Guvment and the Corps, that is a form of socialism is the strictest sense, owning and operating the means of production.
Like the Romans who took a good idea and ran it into the ground, that is our place in history.

05-14-2001, 06:02 PM
There is a question of who is meritorious.

Who decides this? The god wanna bees in government? What happened to people being equal?

05-14-2001, 09:54 PM
Obviously Donald's short term memory is severely impaired. Perhaps that medicinal marijuana is not as effective as he thought?

From Clinton's own energy secretary, Bill Richardson
“It is obvious that the federal government was not prepared. We were caught napping. We got complacent.”

Ben Lieberman, political analyst, saw it in August of the last year of the Billary Presidency

During the eight years of Billary US oil production decreased by 17% while our consumption increased by 14%.

To say there was no crisis during the BIllary the Terrible years is just being facetious and blind.

05-14-2001, 09:56 PM
Of course, if we are considering a socialist regime, why not a religious dictatorial one instead?

It is more stable, strikes more fear in the heart of their enemies, and directs all people of the nation to a singular goal, enlightment.

05-15-2001, 09:37 AM
That's exactly what I mean.
What's the difference between a large corporate bureaucracy, accountant and lawyer types, protected by the policies of the one party socialist government and a large government bureaucracy, accountant and lawyer types, protected by the policies of the one party socialist government? Don't the socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies of the one party socialist government protect the jobs of everyone in large corporations who are tasked with complying with socialist tax and regulatory policies and dealing with socialist judicial activism policies just as those same policies protect the jobs of government bureaucrats tasked with ensuring compliance with those policies?

Aren't the costs of maintaining these large corporate bureaucracies passed on to consumers just like the costs of maintaining large government bureaucracies is passed on to taxpayers? Don't these high per unit of production compliance costs associated with one party socialist government present insurmountable roadblocks to any good businessperson dreaming of starting a competing business?

How do these high per unit of production compliance costs help consumers? How do these high per unit of production compliance costs help the few Americans who still manufacture products in America compete with products made where per unit of production compliance costs are much lower? Why do you think so many manufacturing jobs are leaving the country? Do the accountant and lawyer types, beneficiaries of the one party socialist government's socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies, in these large corporate bureaucracies, just like the accountant and lawyer types in large government bureaucracies, have to worry about competition from foreign workers like manufacturing workers do?

Isn't that why the one party socialist government, the large government bureaucracies, the large corporate bureaucracies, and the corporate owned and controlled socialist press are obsessed with keeping a tax system that punishes American manufacturing workers by placing a high per unit of production tax and tax compliance cost on products Americans make while the products made by our foreign competition are hardly taxed at all at the federal level? Why do you think the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party, large corporate bureaucracies, large government bureaucracies, and the corporate owned and controlled socialist press is so obsessed with keeping the present tax scheme, which rewards accountants, lawyers, and bureaucrats, instead of replacing the present tax scheme with a manufacturing worker friendly national retail sales tax? Who has more power, the beneficiaries of socialist policies, corporate and government bureaucracies, or manufacturing workers, their families, and their communities?

And that's not counting American workers competitive disadvantage because of the per unit of production costs associated with the socialist regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies? Isn't that why large corporations and their corporate bureaucracies, just like large government bureaucracies, pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party and give virtually nothing to the Libertarian Party which wants to abolish the cocoon of socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies that protect large corporations and large corporate bureaucracies from competition?

A few years ago I got a small business start up kit from the VA. Suggestion #1 was hire an accountant. Suggestion #2 was hire a lawyer.