nyblue23

A country with a tax rate that high cannot be called simply a capitalist country. It’s a mixed economy. When your highest income tax rate is over 60% and kicks in if you make 1.2x the average income, you are controlling a large portion of goods and determining how they should be allocated - not allowing them to re-enter the market as in strict laissez-faire capitalism. Further, in repeatedly pointing to Venezuela as the model of socialism, you’re again conflating the word with its worst outcomes and ignoring that free-market capitalism has also been unkind to a very large sector of the population that is subject to it. Socialism in theory does not necessarily mean that the government owns the means of production - it means that the collective owns the means of production. While it’s hard to conceive of an organized body that could control means and distribute goods outside of a system of government, it’s not impossible on a small scale and to consistently demonize all aspects of a theory because of its worst possible outcomes is pretty dishonest. That said, I’ll concede that in some aspects, Scandinavian countries follow a capitalist model more closely than does the U.S., as they interfere little with specific economies and do very little to prop up their corporations with government subsidies. The American government cannot say the same, as it is constantly unnecessarily subsidizing underperforming markets (i.e. American farming and specifically the corn and dairy markets) at the expense of the health of its own citizens. We also infamously like to massively reward banks for indiscretion while still limiting the amount of oversight we give them. Pure socialism would almost definitely never work on the scale of a country as large as the U.S., and would likely never work in even a much smaller country due to the greed that has been mentioned in this thread. Nor, though, does pure oligarchical capitalism where a few wealthy elites are allowed to essentially control an entire economy through their perpetuating monetary influence. Economies are not so black and white. Socialism is no more a dirty word than capitalism.

Problem is I don’t think any of our midfielders with the exception of Gana are particularly good at covering for the fullbacks, either.

Heard. I guess I missed that you were also advocating for an opposite extreme. The problem is that in this country, like in yours, the morality of the two sides (not parties - sides) are not at all equal. Instead of envisioning the term moderate on a political spectrum, all I see is the pure evil that is in office currently and the evil with a little moderation that has been in office for the last 30 years of my life (I’m 30). The term moderate in the context of U.S. politics equates, at least to me, to mean a neoliberal who is willing to work across the aisle to preserve the status quo in terms of a barely functioning, highly predatory brand of government-sponsored capitalism that does not work for the majority of Americans.

Ahh man I was so disappointed. That said, my expectations for anything associated with that series are impossibly high. Agreed. I thought it was thrilling enough. Was pretty troubled by the commentary on people with mental illness though. I’ve started the Sunderland Til I Die series on Netflix. Interesting if only because of the number of Everton castoffs on that particular team (Vaughn, McGeady, Gibbo, Oviedo, Galloway, Browning... I think I’m still missing one or two). Also halfway through season two of Donald Glover’s Atlanta which has been fucking brilliant so far.

Trump won by capitalizing on xenophobia and fear. There’s nothing we can do to conquer those concepts politically except for help the targets of that xenophobia and fear become valued. The moderate and bipartisan nature of the Clinton and Obama presidencies helped foster an environment where Trump became a possibility, or in other words, the nation became polarized in a time of relative moderation. I fail to see how electing another moderate will help fix that.

As much as I will do and vote for whoever it takes to get this mockery out of office, I hate the appeals to moderation in order to coax a middle ground to vote another neoliberal capitalist democrat into office. Republicans won the last presidential election year because they have been ruthlessly unafraid of alienating groups, focused on the sole goal of retaining power and thus retaining privilege. If Democrats truly want to be the party of justice, it’s time to stop pandering and time to be equally unapologetic about fighting for justice in all its forms - economic, environmental, racial, sexual, etc. Sadly, I don’t see many candidates making that kind of statement with the exception of a few in our recently minted class of freshman representatives.

As demonstrated in Mark’s post above here, Chach, I think it’s you who are reaching here and who are appealing to emotion as you did previously in reacting sarcastically to my opinion of Warren’s mixed bag political record. Historically, socialism has, in the capital W Western world, always turned into a form of authoritarianism. That’s not what the theory of socialism actually is, however, and the socialism you speak of is so far out of bounds from what any American would tolerate based on leftovers from McCarthyism that it’s not within the realm of possibility to have an authoritarian socialist candidate here (an authoritarian populist, sure, as that’s what we have on our hands now). Additionally, you discussed how socialism, communism and capitalism are all academic theories to be tested and judged on their merits essentially. Mark and I would argue that we’ve seen the effects of unfettered capitalism (the kind that allows lobbyists to influence elections to the degree that the government has just become another cog in the capitalist machine) and judged it to be a pretty terrible thing to many of the people with whom we share this country.

To the first bit: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/08/is-warren-more-of-a-moderate-040609 To the second: No of course not and what a jump to make. But as she’s the first Democrat of note to announce her candidacy, that’s not a position anyone is even close to assuming. I just tend to agree that she’s too polarizing to both sides (too progressive for moderates and too much of a capitalist for the far left) to have a truly viable candidacy. It’ll be interesting to see how many of Booker, Biden, Gabbard, Harris, O’Rourke and Sanders decide to run, as I think all of them have a much better shot in a general election than Warren.

She’s too moderate to appeal to true leftists, too.

Started (albeit at RB) and got a clean sheet against Wigan on Saturday. Hopefully he keeps playing.

I know they played a weakened side and are probably happy to be out of the competition anyway given the demands of the PL and CL, but damn it feels good to see them lose twice in a row.

Definitely the airport thing that did it. Not only am I a bit of a drunk myself, but as a bartender I see people acting like absolute shitheads on a daily basis and have never seen someone arrested solely for public intoxication. Any odd behavior in an airport is likely to raise some concerns in this country.

They’ll have had 8 days off now. Don’t think that a rest is beneficial for anyone.

Everton 1 - 1 Bournemouth Richarlison

Zouma wasn’t good. Their striker gave him fits and his positioning was pretty poor. Odd that he’s getting shouts on here. For me, only Baines, Lookman and Bernard stood out.

Can we give up zonal marking on set pieces yet? We’re just too stupid to get it right.

That was some incredibly laissez-faire refereeing there at the end. Happy to see City pull it out, but sadly, I can’t take back what I said.

It fucking kills me to say this, but watching this City match makes me really believe that the Shite are the best team in the league.

Everton 2 - 2 Leicester Richarlison

I think players want to play in the CL on a massive stage. I’ve yet to believe a player who says they’re excited to play in the Europa League.

Silva said he’s ready in the article Mark posted in the Tosun thread. It’d be great to see him in the squad tomorrow.

Wanna give that an upvote for your compiling all of it, but that’s too depressing.

That still has the implication of saying we were just as well off. Didn’t miss = easy to win without.

You’re accusing haf of being so narrow-minded about a player’s ability that he can’t recognize when his absence might have been beneficial, and yet in the very post that haf responded to in the first place, you suggested that we won in part due to his absence, despite having been thrashed in the last two matches without him. In essence, you’re doing exactly what you say haf is doing, just reversing the terms. A bad loss without Gana means nothing but a good win without Gana means everything.

Brighton 1 - 2 Everton Richarlison