No, government is still more powerful. People may label my comment as communist, but I really don't care, especially when its a matter of defense/natsec. If Trump had the stones, he would nationalize SpaceX and make it a part of NASA. But he doesn't. And there isn't a single living elected official in the U.S. with the stomach for it. FDR would have, though. If put in a similar position, Xi Jinping would do so without hesitation. But that speaks to our limitations as a nation. The U.S. Constitution protects us from state tyranny, but it doesn’t account for the tyranny of private industry which is what Elon Musk is threatening to do with SpaceX. And he's far from the only one.
I fail to see what is "communist" about your comment. You are probably correct about Xi Jinping, but FDR never nationalized any industry. He created many helpful programs and agencies and pulled us out of the Great Depression.
He never identified himself a Socialist, even though his critics went there, of course. Nationalization of an Industry is definitely communist in nature, as it is a form of governance where the Government holds all the cards.
In my humble opinion, what best describes a Socialist is a belief in a Government Of the People, By The People and For the People. It follows the "consent of the governed.
But a Socialist does believe in Capitalism, just well regulated so we don't have the sh*t show we presently have.
Hitler, Franco and Mussolini tried to make an alliance with big business. that didn't work well either: You cannot govern a country like a business, as Trump is finding out
As I often say: It's easier to run your mouth than to run a government.
Great comment. One correction; Hitler absolutely made his alliance with big business, it was in fact that alliance that solidified his power along with the multinational corporations who backed him in the US and abroad. Henry Ford was one well-known promoter of nazism in America, but there were a handful of others. Concentration camps were nearly pure-profit enterprises, obviously many degrees more brutal and indefensible in nature and scope, but not entirely dissimilar to California’s own highly profitable system of prison labor which was re-entrenched in the most recent election.
Exactly. The Fire Department we have is composed of volunteers who are paid [not all that handsomely, by the way] to risk their lives when your life and property is on the line: We pool our resources so we have folks ready and willing to help us in our disastrous moments. Public libraries and Public schools are also in this category:
E Pluribus Unum.
Technically, that is also the way Insurance works. We pool our resources to help the sick, the injured. Even private insurance companies rely on a large pool of folks who pay in so they can help those who are in temporary distress. Being *private* however means they have to attract a large number of participants. That's hard to do. Which explains why the ACA has been so successful.
Clearly you have a bastardized Americanized view of socialism and Hitler. Big businesses allying with Hitler solidified his power. Socialism does have a “market”, but no capital owners like in Capitalism.
I'm not sure if "bastardized" is the right word, Definitely "modified", and modified by my French heritage. It is absolutely true that Big businesses allying with Hitler solidified his power. [Just like Trump's billionaires are solidifying his].
True also that "Socialism does have a “market”. Certainly in the marketplace of ideas. In France, which is the 'market' I know best Socialists and communists cannot stand each other: They are both vying for the same demographics [blue collar workers], which has made French socialists a lot more pragmatic. They do see capitalism certainly as a necessary evil they have to live with, so they are not as strident as the Socialists from before WWII, but they also want to see it very well regulated.
Labels and definitions are something to take with a grain of salt, as you can see. There are many versions of "democratic", and "Republic". So it helps to always go a bit deeper.
For example, North Korea, if you believe their own label, is called : Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), when it is neither a Republic, nor is it Democratic.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland and the Netherlands, without attaching the word "socialist" in their names, rate very high [higher than we do] on the "democratic index". If you ask Conservatives, they would call those "socialist", because of all the social programs they have.
As you can see, it is not one or the other. Rather, it is a continuum. And this diversity actually makes all of us much richer, at least in ideas!
In a way, you have it right and I misspoke. The movement, in its beginning, had an array of shades, most thinking that capitalism was the worst thing on earth, guided by greed and totally disrespectful of the working stiff, and it is. And many advocated violence to abolish it. ["What is property? property is theft", for example]
Over the years, it has evolved into something that is more palatable to the general public. We are no longer talking about destroying free markets but guiding them through *regulations* into protecting "the little guy". They are no longer talking about confiscation of industries, for example.
That is why you always hear conservatives screaming about "job-killing-regulations". [Yeah, you can make a big buck more quickly by polluting and treating your workers like peons, but that is wrong, and there must be rules to protect all workers].
In Europe, today's Socialists are still strong critics of the worst aspects of capitalism but all believe in accumulating some personal wealth, as long as it doesn't disturb the social fabric. They have adopted just about all of the Social systems put in place by FDR and have often improved on the model.
Thanks for interjecting: As a linguist, I should have been more specific.
One could rightly argue the the socialists you are referring to are not socialists at all. They are capitalists who believe in giving the plebians just enough that they don't rise up and overthrow the government and exploitive economic system. Like FDR, Bernie Sanders and "capitalist to my bones" Elizabeth Warren.
Do you really believe that FDR, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren consciously believe in giving the "Plebeians" just enough so they don't overthrow the government? That's a bit harsh...
Perhaps they believe in balancing the interests of those you call "the Plebeians" and the interests of those who have gained wealth?
In Ancient Rome, there was indeed an order that kept Plebeians in more manual labor such as farmers and artisans and Patricians, who, whether gifted, intelligent, savvy or not were dominating the social order.
The system of castes was nearly impossible to thwart.
One could rightly argue that this is not the social order we have today: People can change jobs, marry outside of their 'caste' or out of their race. They are free to move to a different state or country, divorce, remarry...
Yet there are a number of people who have accumulated wealth much higher than their worth, and that is making our Democracy nearly impossible.
I was listening to a commentator who said that years ago, a "boss" would earn maybe 10 times what the janitor made. Nowadays, it is more like 500 times.
He added: "I've never seen a man who was 500 times more worthy than a janitor". I tend to agree.
I suspect that Norway and Sweden and Switzerland may have found some sort of balance that keeps their people happy enough to not want a revolution.
I suspect that it is a balance we should strive for.
Today's system, I think you will agree, is out of whack.
As I said, they aren't socialists, they're capitalists. Capitalism can only survive with the acquiescence of the working class. If the working class has too little to survive, as in the Great Depression, capitalists become worried about revolution, so give the working class enough to keep them from revolting. Just enough. Why? Because more than that hurts profits too much, and capitalism will fail. FDR knew that, and so do Bernie and Warren. I only have respect for actual socialists, who believe the economy should only exist to serve working people, that there should be very little income equality, and that the profit motive, which is the cause of all exploitation, must be completely eliminated.
If there is a silver lining to this sordid quarrel, it is that it placed me in total agreement with Trump and Musk: They are both totally correct: The other guy is a criminal!
Now, that does not help us all that much in the short term, but as Trump said recently (talking about Putin & Zelensky) "when you see 2 people fighting like children, sometimes you just have to let them fight a little longer."
Ha! I bet you didn't know I was going there, did you? :-)
The fact is that both Trump and Musk are "Enemies of We The People": Let them tear into each other: they will both end up diminished, for our benefit.
Who will come out on top? Probably Elon, because X is so much larger than Truth Social, and Musk is so much richer than Trump. I'm sure he could convince a few important people to try and remove the Felon, using the 25th Amendment, Section 4: Trump has not behaved like a president, like EVER, and his state of confusion is becoming ever more obvious.
I'm sure Musk could stick a few millions in corrupting this 'cabinet' [which is already incredibly corrupt] to turn on Trump and call him unfit...Elon and all his subsidies stay in place, JD Vance becomes President and keeps the Corrupt Cabinet to do his bidding.
Trump is a lame duck president anyway, and I think some Republican politicians are starting to think about the color of their parachute after Trump...
I'm torn on this one. If either decides to take this to a medievel level, I think Trump wins. Musk will go down like an effigy for people on both sides, and Trump comes out looking great. Well, sort of. But if TACO Tariff Guy shows up to the fight, Musk wins.
If I were advising the President, I would say go with Bannon here. Divest from Tesla, zero subsidies, nationalize SpaceX, and deport Musk. Get Pam Bondi to start the investigations, and perhaps assign a special prosecutor (and make that person a Democrat). Do it - strike while the iron's hot. This will also get the public over any TACO talk, when you REALLY do not chicken out on this one. Plus, it's only business - who gets Elon's money?
I can't predict the future, but I think you're wildly off-base here. Just saying so to keep myself accountable here. Musk is already deleting his most inflammatory posts. If literally nothing else happens, that's enough to count as a Trump win.
Not so sure about that. Trump is a gangster. Don’t underestimate his appetite for vengeance and where he came from. Musk will take him down, but it’s looking more like the famous fighting dinos in NYC where no one emerges unscathed in the end.
The presence of the ultrarich at the inauguration is evidence that they are eager to be on good terms with the President, no? They must pay homage knowing of the power he has to change their financial situation.
As for personal wealth, those at the top are extremely dependent on investors loving the shares of companies owned and that can change very quickly. It's certainly true that the ultrarich will not become homeless at any point, but their status, their ranking on the list of richest rich is very important to their sense of self-worth, crazy at that is. Dropping from #4 to #10, for example, would be devastating and likely to result in deep depression. Hard as it may be to believe by the 99%, those at the top, with the notable exception of Warren Buffett, are very insecure with their egos tightly bound to position regarding their peers. All the private jets, yachts, and mansions for a person that can only be in one room at a time just like the rest of us is testimony to this and the continual drive that will not let them let up on accumulation that is pointless when looked at rationally. For all the glamour, they are squirrels in a squirrel cage.
No, government is still more powerful. People may label my comment as communist, but I really don't care, especially when its a matter of defense/natsec. If Trump had the stones, he would nationalize SpaceX and make it a part of NASA. But he doesn't. And there isn't a single living elected official in the U.S. with the stomach for it. FDR would have, though. If put in a similar position, Xi Jinping would do so without hesitation. But that speaks to our limitations as a nation. The U.S. Constitution protects us from state tyranny, but it doesn’t account for the tyranny of private industry which is what Elon Musk is threatening to do with SpaceX. And he's far from the only one.
I fail to see what is "communist" about your comment. You are probably correct about Xi Jinping, but FDR never nationalized any industry. He created many helpful programs and agencies and pulled us out of the Great Depression.
He never identified himself a Socialist, even though his critics went there, of course. Nationalization of an Industry is definitely communist in nature, as it is a form of governance where the Government holds all the cards.
In my humble opinion, what best describes a Socialist is a belief in a Government Of the People, By The People and For the People. It follows the "consent of the governed.
But a Socialist does believe in Capitalism, just well regulated so we don't have the sh*t show we presently have.
Hitler, Franco and Mussolini tried to make an alliance with big business. that didn't work well either: You cannot govern a country like a business, as Trump is finding out
As I often say: It's easier to run your mouth than to run a government.
Great comment. One correction; Hitler absolutely made his alliance with big business, it was in fact that alliance that solidified his power along with the multinational corporations who backed him in the US and abroad. Henry Ford was one well-known promoter of nazism in America, but there were a handful of others. Concentration camps were nearly pure-profit enterprises, obviously many degrees more brutal and indefensible in nature and scope, but not entirely dissimilar to California’s own highly profitable system of prison labor which was re-entrenched in the most recent election.
When you call the fire department in a harrowing moment-remember- this is what socialism looks like.
Exactly. The Fire Department we have is composed of volunteers who are paid [not all that handsomely, by the way] to risk their lives when your life and property is on the line: We pool our resources so we have folks ready and willing to help us in our disastrous moments. Public libraries and Public schools are also in this category:
E Pluribus Unum.
Technically, that is also the way Insurance works. We pool our resources to help the sick, the injured. Even private insurance companies rely on a large pool of folks who pay in so they can help those who are in temporary distress. Being *private* however means they have to attract a large number of participants. That's hard to do. Which explains why the ACA has been so successful.
Clearly you have a bastardized Americanized view of socialism and Hitler. Big businesses allying with Hitler solidified his power. Socialism does have a “market”, but no capital owners like in Capitalism.
I'm not sure if "bastardized" is the right word, Definitely "modified", and modified by my French heritage. It is absolutely true that Big businesses allying with Hitler solidified his power. [Just like Trump's billionaires are solidifying his].
True also that "Socialism does have a “market”. Certainly in the marketplace of ideas. In France, which is the 'market' I know best Socialists and communists cannot stand each other: They are both vying for the same demographics [blue collar workers], which has made French socialists a lot more pragmatic. They do see capitalism certainly as a necessary evil they have to live with, so they are not as strident as the Socialists from before WWII, but they also want to see it very well regulated.
Labels and definitions are something to take with a grain of salt, as you can see. There are many versions of "democratic", and "Republic". So it helps to always go a bit deeper.
For example, North Korea, if you believe their own label, is called : Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), when it is neither a Republic, nor is it Democratic.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland and the Netherlands, without attaching the word "socialist" in their names, rate very high [higher than we do] on the "democratic index". If you ask Conservatives, they would call those "socialist", because of all the social programs they have.
As you can see, it is not one or the other. Rather, it is a continuum. And this diversity actually makes all of us much richer, at least in ideas!
Socialists believe in capitalism? Not from my understanding.
In a way, you have it right and I misspoke. The movement, in its beginning, had an array of shades, most thinking that capitalism was the worst thing on earth, guided by greed and totally disrespectful of the working stiff, and it is. And many advocated violence to abolish it. ["What is property? property is theft", for example]
Over the years, it has evolved into something that is more palatable to the general public. We are no longer talking about destroying free markets but guiding them through *regulations* into protecting "the little guy". They are no longer talking about confiscation of industries, for example.
That is why you always hear conservatives screaming about "job-killing-regulations". [Yeah, you can make a big buck more quickly by polluting and treating your workers like peons, but that is wrong, and there must be rules to protect all workers].
I was thinking more about the Social Market Economy that is practiced pretty much throughout Europe. Cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
In Europe, today's Socialists are still strong critics of the worst aspects of capitalism but all believe in accumulating some personal wealth, as long as it doesn't disturb the social fabric. They have adopted just about all of the Social systems put in place by FDR and have often improved on the model.
Thanks for interjecting: As a linguist, I should have been more specific.
One could rightly argue the the socialists you are referring to are not socialists at all. They are capitalists who believe in giving the plebians just enough that they don't rise up and overthrow the government and exploitive economic system. Like FDR, Bernie Sanders and "capitalist to my bones" Elizabeth Warren.
Do you really believe that FDR, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren consciously believe in giving the "Plebeians" just enough so they don't overthrow the government? That's a bit harsh...
Perhaps they believe in balancing the interests of those you call "the Plebeians" and the interests of those who have gained wealth?
In Ancient Rome, there was indeed an order that kept Plebeians in more manual labor such as farmers and artisans and Patricians, who, whether gifted, intelligent, savvy or not were dominating the social order.
The system of castes was nearly impossible to thwart.
One could rightly argue that this is not the social order we have today: People can change jobs, marry outside of their 'caste' or out of their race. They are free to move to a different state or country, divorce, remarry...
Yet there are a number of people who have accumulated wealth much higher than their worth, and that is making our Democracy nearly impossible.
I was listening to a commentator who said that years ago, a "boss" would earn maybe 10 times what the janitor made. Nowadays, it is more like 500 times.
He added: "I've never seen a man who was 500 times more worthy than a janitor". I tend to agree.
I suspect that Norway and Sweden and Switzerland may have found some sort of balance that keeps their people happy enough to not want a revolution.
I suspect that it is a balance we should strive for.
Today's system, I think you will agree, is out of whack.
As I said, they aren't socialists, they're capitalists. Capitalism can only survive with the acquiescence of the working class. If the working class has too little to survive, as in the Great Depression, capitalists become worried about revolution, so give the working class enough to keep them from revolting. Just enough. Why? Because more than that hurts profits too much, and capitalism will fail. FDR knew that, and so do Bernie and Warren. I only have respect for actual socialists, who believe the economy should only exist to serve working people, that there should be very little income equality, and that the profit motive, which is the cause of all exploitation, must be completely eliminated.
Most people couldn't name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? C'mon, everybody knows it's Rob Johnson.
lol...
Not to mention that a good portion of Trump's wealth comes via his shit coin. Whoever has access to the best drugs eventually wins.
If there is a silver lining to this sordid quarrel, it is that it placed me in total agreement with Trump and Musk: They are both totally correct: The other guy is a criminal!
Now, that does not help us all that much in the short term, but as Trump said recently (talking about Putin & Zelensky) "when you see 2 people fighting like children, sometimes you just have to let them fight a little longer."
Ha! I bet you didn't know I was going there, did you? :-)
The fact is that both Trump and Musk are "Enemies of We The People": Let them tear into each other: they will both end up diminished, for our benefit.
Who will come out on top? Probably Elon, because X is so much larger than Truth Social, and Musk is so much richer than Trump. I'm sure he could convince a few important people to try and remove the Felon, using the 25th Amendment, Section 4: Trump has not behaved like a president, like EVER, and his state of confusion is becoming ever more obvious.
I'm sure Musk could stick a few millions in corrupting this 'cabinet' [which is already incredibly corrupt] to turn on Trump and call him unfit...Elon and all his subsidies stay in place, JD Vance becomes President and keeps the Corrupt Cabinet to do his bidding.
Trump is a lame duck president anyway, and I think some Republican politicians are starting to think about the color of their parachute after Trump...
Bring the popcorn!
From Europe; I look at the USA with their guns in their homes.
JUST wait you morons who say nothing: Your guns will be confiscated and you will be shipped off to El Salvador.
NOT one person is 'safe' in the USA which is why you have NO tourists or business coming to your DESPICABLE dumb country.
Now thats funny.
I'm torn on this one. If either decides to take this to a medievel level, I think Trump wins. Musk will go down like an effigy for people on both sides, and Trump comes out looking great. Well, sort of. But if TACO Tariff Guy shows up to the fight, Musk wins.
If I were advising the President, I would say go with Bannon here. Divest from Tesla, zero subsidies, nationalize SpaceX, and deport Musk. Get Pam Bondi to start the investigations, and perhaps assign a special prosecutor (and make that person a Democrat). Do it - strike while the iron's hot. This will also get the public over any TACO talk, when you REALLY do not chicken out on this one. Plus, it's only business - who gets Elon's money?
That's me summoning the spirit of Stephen Miller.
I can't predict the future, but I think you're wildly off-base here. Just saying so to keep myself accountable here. Musk is already deleting his most inflammatory posts. If literally nothing else happens, that's enough to count as a Trump win.
Not to gloat, but it definitely doesn't look like Musk is "winning" here.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-trump-apology-b2767799.html
Not so sure about that. Trump is a gangster. Don’t underestimate his appetite for vengeance and where he came from. Musk will take him down, but it’s looking more like the famous fighting dinos in NYC where no one emerges unscathed in the end.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fighting-dinos/the-fighting-dinosaurs
NOT interested in this feud.
"Take your eyes off the ball" USA!
I am surprised that you, Ken are even writing about this.
2 narcissists don't make a future.
Nope, but because of Citizens United, they hold our future in their hands...
The presence of the ultrarich at the inauguration is evidence that they are eager to be on good terms with the President, no? They must pay homage knowing of the power he has to change their financial situation.
As for personal wealth, those at the top are extremely dependent on investors loving the shares of companies owned and that can change very quickly. It's certainly true that the ultrarich will not become homeless at any point, but their status, their ranking on the list of richest rich is very important to their sense of self-worth, crazy at that is. Dropping from #4 to #10, for example, would be devastating and likely to result in deep depression. Hard as it may be to believe by the 99%, those at the top, with the notable exception of Warren Buffett, are very insecure with their egos tightly bound to position regarding their peers. All the private jets, yachts, and mansions for a person that can only be in one room at a time just like the rest of us is testimony to this and the continual drive that will not let them let up on accumulation that is pointless when looked at rationally. For all the glamour, they are squirrels in a squirrel cage.