IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags capitalism , socialism

Reply
Old 3rd March 2021, 01:37 PM   #41
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,625
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The flaw of Capitalism is that what we define as Capital is not broad enough.

Social Capital, Reputational Capital, Expertise Capital etc. are all forms of wealth that might be have for useful for a Capitalist Society to be used instead of just forms of money.
Entrepreneurs use their reputation and expertise to raise capital and attract investors all the time.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 01:03 AM   #42
HoverBoarder
Graduate Poster
 
HoverBoarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Careful with that line of thinking, you're liable to conclude that maybe the Republicans aren't Nazis either, and that both sides tend to exaggerate the danger the other side poses.
Absolutely. Lumping all members of a party as some damaging classification is part of the blame based understanding system. Where people overgeneralize the other side as 'bad' in order to not have to spend as much time questioning their own ideas.

Part of it is an efficiency thing. People have a lot of things going on in their lives, they only have a limited amount of time to spend, and they don't have time to focus on all of the details of everything. Demonizing The other side gives them the moral certainty of their ideas and the emotional boost of the righteousness of their side.

The consequences is that we get group think, and many people don't question their our own ideologies for fallacies or flaws.

I think that the divide keeping the political tribes in this Country from having meaningful conversations with each other is one of the greatest problems our country faces right now.
HoverBoarder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 01:07 AM   #43
HoverBoarder
Graduate Poster
 
HoverBoarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
2 key things to remember

Government regulations are not Socialism.
Social safety nets are not Socialism


These two things are indeed required for Capitalism to function properly.


Socialism is characterized by public or social ownership of the means of production. IOW business themselves are publically or socially owned. Mainly we think about this in terms of government owned, but other forms like co-operative ownership could also apply.

While not strictly required for Capitalism to function properly, there are cases where these structures result in higher economic efficiency then private ownership. Higher economic efficiency means more goods\services to go around so people are overall better off. By and large though, regulated private ownership usually, (but again not always) yields the best economic efficiency.
I think that gets to the heart of the question of the thread. If those programs are critical for the function of the means of production in the country, why would that not be considered Socialism?
HoverBoarder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 02:15 AM   #44
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,029
Originally Posted by HoverBoarder View Post
I think that gets to the heart of the question of the thread. If those programs are critical for the function of the means of production in the country, why would that not be considered Socialism?
Because that doesn’t fit the definition of socialism that is in mainstream use everywhere with perhaps the USA being the exception.

As others have said socialism is in essence a very simple concept, the means of production is in the hands of the producers i.e. the community as a whole, there is no capital.

What you seem to think is socialism is state regulation and controls on capitalism.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 03:28 AM   #45
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 777
Socialism as defined by Oxford Languages;-

Quote:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
And as defined by Wikipedia:-

Quote:
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control or workers' self-management of enterprises.
Noting the inclusion of cooperative management.


The health and unemployment benefit systems often called Socialism would be better called Welfare.
__________________
Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning.
Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 04:06 AM   #46
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,527
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
Socialism as defined by Oxford Languages;-



And as defined by Wikipedia:-



Noting the inclusion of cooperative management.


The health and unemployment benefit systems often called Socialism would be better called Welfare.
They are in other countries. The name is much better suited to the purpose than the "S" label.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 07:54 AM   #47
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,795
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
They are in other countries. The name is much better suited to the purpose than the "S" label.
In the US, however, the word "welfare" is as much poison as is "socialism". A large part of American politics is simply screaming about a neutral term until it becomes a bad one, even if/especially if the people hearing it can't actually define it properly.

Given the platform you could turn a large part of America against anything just by referring to it insultingly, while never defining it. We could lead successful campaigns against Broca's Area, or orographic lift. Did you know that over seventy-five percent of elementary school kids are living withing a mile of at least one numismatist, and the government is doing NOTHING about it?!!?!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 08:45 AM   #48
Ron Obvious
Muse
 
Ron Obvious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Did you know that over seventy-five percent of elementary school kids are living withing a mile of at least one numismatist, and the government is doing NOTHING about it?!!?!
I wouldn't be surprised if it were even more, and worse degeneracy as well: It's rumoured that my own neighbour has been seen trying to interest young boys in philately!
__________________
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell
Ron Obvious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 08:57 AM   #49
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,029
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In the US, however, the word "welfare" is as much poison as is "socialism". A large part of American politics is simply screaming about a neutral term until it becomes a bad one, even if/especially if the people hearing it can't actually define it properly.

Given the platform you could turn a large part of America against anything just by referring to it insultingly, while never defining it. We could lead successful campaigns against Broca's Area, or orographic lift. Did you know that over seventy-five percent of elementary school kids are living withing a mile of at least one numismatist, and the government is doing NOTHING about it?!!?!
In the UK “welfare” has thanks to decades of demonisation come to be regarded as a negative. You will often hear about how much it costs to keep our layabouts in their lives of luxury - with their flatscreen TVs no less! They’ll throw out that it’s something like £235 billion. Which they carefully forget to ever explain as the biggest single spend is in fact on pensions - often the very ones complaining about the lazy good for nothings getting something for nothing, pensions take up to 40+% of welfare budget. Unemployment support takes up just 1% of the welfare spend! But reality is naughty like that - refuses to conform to our fantasies.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2021, 12:47 PM   #50
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Capitalism is fully compatible with (representative) democracy, taxation, and a social safety net...
That is one way of putting it, but the more appropriate way would go something like:

Capitalism, and Capitalists in particular, tolerate Socialist trappings, like democratic republics and their rigged elections, corporate regulation, always contested and hated taxations, and wage-slave maintenances such as public healthcare, retirement pensions, etc., until they can fully neuter, and kill them, because they impede and distort the unfettered market and its service to the capitalists, by dampening the peaks and troughs inherent to the fundamentals capitalism builds into its business cycle, when much of the wealth cream which capitalists skim from the system is "earned" through insider trading and manipulation (of course their manipulations aren't seen as dangerous market distortions, as they are following their creed of maximizing personal profits above all other concerns and it would be blasphemous for them to follow any other course) as well as their latest innovation, massive corporate welfare from the Public treasury and "printing presses."
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 9th March 2021 at 12:49 PM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2021, 01:49 PM   #51
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 52,722
Could we first agree on a definition of "Socialism"?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2021, 01:54 PM   #52
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,625
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Could we first agree on a definition of "Socialism"?
We've been having variations of this same conversation for over ten years, here. If we haven't agreed on a definition by now, we're not going to. Either that, or we already have agreement on a definition that's good enough to move forward, but it suits our purposes to act like we don't, and keep the conversation stuck in the same rut for another ten years.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2021, 11:34 PM   #53
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Could we first agree on a definition of "Socialism"?
Where's the fun in that?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2021, 06:25 AM   #54
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Could we first agree on a definition of "Socialism"?
See post 45 - which would you prefer? or do you have one of your own?
__________________
Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning.
Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2021, 11:41 AM   #55
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by HoverBoarder View Post
Snipped

While I definitely understand the lethal consequences of some traditionally Socialist countries like Venezuela, I think the massive overuse of "Socialism" as a derogatory claim prevents a lot of meaningful debate on very real and important issues.
That seems like an oxymoronic statement.

If you understand the lethal consequences of Socialism, there's not much to discuss. The only logical reason for such a discussion is that someone is seeking political spin to make Socialism appear as a friendly alternative to Capitalism, which by your own understanding above, is not.

Capitalism with minimal Government regulation and a social safety net is as close as we need to be to Socialism in the US. A push much further and we'll simply recreate Venezuela. We already have a Venezuela model, no need to create a new one anywhere else.

Arguments which cherry pick limited specific social programs from Socialism are a favorite among some political parties to promote a full Socialist agenda.
However, usually these same folks fail to mention or consider in a discussion of conversion to full Socialism, that along with the good Socialism stuff, comes the very very bad.

Using that type of thinking, one could argue that since we all awake after sleep, put on our pants, socks and shoes, dress and ready for the day just like serial killers do, why then it should be perfectly fine for us to duplicate all the other activity that serial killers do during the day as well.

Yeah, not so much.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2021, 11:55 AM   #56
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,070
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Could we first agree on a definition of "Socialism"?
It's got a definition, and that definition has been stated or alluded to several times in this thread.

The problem is that the political right in the US doesn't actually use that definition and don't really have one of their own. Rather it's used as a generic, catch-all slur for anything they don't like. Because they attach no other real meaning to it they don't need to justify why it's bad or why it's apropos in any given situation. The talking heads call it "Socialism" and the plebs immediately know they are supposed to dislike it without any thought or reason.

Since it's only propose is to convey orthodoxy to followers it doesn't need a real meaning or definition for the political right.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 01:59 AM   #57
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
It's got a definition, and that definition has been stated or alluded to several times in this thread.

The problem is that the political right in the US doesn't actually use that definition and don't really have one of their own. Rather it's used as a generic, catch-all slur for anything they don't like. Because they attach no other real meaning to it they don't need to justify why it's bad or why it's apropos in any given situation. The talking heads call it "Socialism" and the plebs immediately know they are supposed to dislike it without any thought or reason.

Since it's only propose is to convey orthodoxy to followers it doesn't need a real meaning or definition for the political right.
So rather like the political left use the word Nazi for anything to the right of their views?
__________________
Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning.
Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 02:03 AM   #58
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We've been having variations of this same conversation for over ten years, here. If we haven't agreed on a definition by now, we're not going to. Either that, or we already have agreement on a definition that's good enough to move forward, but it suits our purposes to act like we don't, and keep the conversation stuck in the same rut for another ten years.
There's no point in having a definition of Socialism that forces the traditional posters on this forum to face the fact that their preferred "socialist" outlook is actually far from Socialist.

Gotta stay in the "south west" quadrant of the "political compass" somehow....
__________________
Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning.
Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.

Last edited by Lplus; 24th March 2021 at 02:05 AM.
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 06:27 AM   #59
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,070
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
So rather like the political left use the word Nazi for anything to the right of their views?
Since when? This seems more like another baseless assertion the right wing talking heads use to control their people.

Things that resemble fascism do get labelled as such, which is as it should be. This tends to be fairly well scrutinized and what usually happens is that the resemblance to historical fascism ends up being understated, which is very different that the political right's use of the term "socialism".
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 07:00 AM   #60
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,070
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
There's no point in having a definition of Socialism that forces the traditional posters on this forum to face the fact that their preferred "socialist" outlook is actually far from Socialist.

Gotta stay in the "south west" quadrant of the "political compass" somehow....
Again wrong. The political right had moved to such extremes that to them, views that would have firmly right of center in the 1990's are now being called "socialist" in right wing political dogma. In the US, economic polices that were "core conservative values" 25 years ago have been completely abandoned by Republicans and now form the core of mainstream Democratic economic policy.

The right wing talking heads now call these things "socialist" in order to keep their power base from fragmenting so they can hold onto power even though they have no realistic policy ideas of their own. Since they have no actual policies to pursue holding onto power for powers sake is all most of the old guard are doing. The scary thing is that the younger idealist are actually willing to try some of the bats*** crazy ideas that is all Republicans have left after 40 years of moving farther and farther right to maintain a differentiation between themselves and Democrats.

This is why economists who have used to support Republicans now vote Democrat by a wide margin. In practical terms many policy ideas promoted by more intellectual Republicans are often indistinguishable from AnCaps.

With the rise of Trump, this is somehow glued together with populist Republicans that support something resembling the Fascist countries in WW2. This includes both economic isolationism that restricts imports under the guise of "self sufficiency" while exports are encouraged as a means of projecting power. Privately owned business is encouraged but only those that are willing to support right wing leaders in their political goals are supported by government while those who refuse such support are undermined at every turn.

This is a toxic mix that history tells us can only lead to explosion or implosion, but everything else is deemed "socialism" by the talking heads in order to keep the rank and file in line.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 07:09 AM   #61
Lplus
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Again wrong. The political right had moved to such extremes that to them, views that would have firmly right of center in the 1990's are now being called "socialist" in right wing political dogma. In the US, economic polices that were "core conservative values" 25 years ago have been completely abandoned by Republicans and now form the core of mainstream Democratic economic policy.

The right wing talking heads now call these things "socialist" in order to keep their power base from fragmenting so they can hold onto power even though they have no realistic policy ideas of their own. Since they have no actual policies to pursue holding onto power for powers sake is all most of the old guard are doing. The scary thing is that the younger idealist are actually willing to try some of the bats*** crazy ideas that is all Republicans have left after 40 years of moving farther and farther right to maintain a differentiation between themselves and Democrats.

This is why economists who have used to support Republicans now vote Democrat by a wide margin. In practical terms many policy ideas promoted by more intellectual Republicans are often indistinguishable from AnCaps.

With the rise of Trump, this is somehow glued together with populist Republicans that support something resembling the Fascist countries in WW2. This includes both economic isolationism that restricts imports under the guise of "self sufficiency" while exports are encouraged as a means of projecting power. Privately owned business is encouraged but only those that are willing to support right wing leaders in their political goals are supported by government while those who refuse such support are undermined at every turn.

This is a toxic mix that history tells us can only lead to explosion or implosion, but everything else is deemed "socialism" by the talking heads in order to keep the rank and file in line.
And yet despite this continuing apparent massive movement to the right there is still a close balance between Democrat and Republican voters. So either the whole USA is veering rightwards en mass (which seems unlikely), or nothing has really changed except the definitions.

None of which affects the definition used on this forum as requested by Dualb.
__________________
Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning.
Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 08:43 AM   #62
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,070
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
And yet despite this continuing apparent massive movement to the right there is still a close balance between Democrat and Republican voters.
Voters themselves have migrated towards the Democrats. It's only a combination of voter suppression and gerrymandering that allow Republicans to have any success nationally. Even with significant suppression of traditionally Democratic voters there is little hope of Republicans winning the popular vote any time soon.


Regardless, my point is that Republicans have sopped adopted a strategy of creating a system where they can dictate to their core voters what policies they are supposed to support or oppose. in this system it doesn't really matter if a policy is socialist, nor does socialist really need to mean anything at all. It's just a way of telling their base what polices they need to support and what they need to oppose in order to be "a real Republican". The goal is to keep voters who will do as they are told inside a partisan bubble, keep themselves distinct from Democratic policy to keep that bubble from fragmenting and to do as mush as possible to keep anyone else from voting.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2021, 03:35 PM   #63
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Again wrong. The political right had moved to such extremes that to them, views that would have firmly right of center in the 1990's are now being called "socialist" in right wing political dogma. In the US, economic polices that were "core conservative values" 25 years ago have been completely abandoned by Republicans and now form the core of mainstream Democratic economic policy.
This is an interesting view. It looks to me that Conservatives are in the exact same place as they were during the Reagan/Bush era. Yet beginning with Clinton, the shift to Socialism started to appear in the NAFTA negotiations with the redistribution of wealth from the US to everywhere else in the World. So in other words, exactly the opposite is true of your stated opinion above.


Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The right wing talking heads now call these things "socialist" in order to keep their power base from fragmenting so they can hold onto power even though they have no realistic policy ideas of their own. Since they have no actual policies to pursue holding onto power for powers sake is all most of the old guard are doing. The scary thing is that the younger idealist are actually willing to try some of the bats*** crazy ideas that is all Republicans have left after 40 years of moving farther and farther right to maintain a differentiation between themselves and Democrats.
As the Left policies on trade were/are Socialist so should they be labelled. When you start redistributing American jobs and wealth worldwide, that's socialism right out of the book, there can be no doubt.
Again, Republicans have not moved, they're still in the same place as they were 40 years ago. I'll list a few so there is no misunderstanding:
1.Reagan/Bush Republicans wanted a strong economy with fair trade practices to allow American business and workers to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the World.
2.Lower taxes to reduce the shoulder weight carried by lower income individuals and to help increase/build business thereby promoting job growth and income. Increased jobs/income of the masses ensures increased tax revenue for the Government. Everyone wins.
3.Republicans wanted protection of the 2nd Amendment.
4.Immigration policies that actually give immigrants a path to citizenship the correct legal way. Reagan actually pardoned illegal Immigrants and gave them a path to citizenship. Which was also a path to becoming new tax payers of course.

Just to name a few. So all in all a quick compare/contrast of Republicans vs Democrats has the movement on the political Left/Right spectrum credited to Democrats moving further Left and exactly the opposite of your claim. Republicans are rooted to the same place they were 40 years ago.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
This is why economists who have used to support Republicans now vote Democrat by a wide margin. In practical terms many policy ideas promoted by more intellectual Republicans are often indistinguishable from AnCaps.
This is an interesting claim. Is this claim based on certain leaning media sources or is there a real study somewhere? Linky...

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
With the rise of Trump, this is somehow glued together with populist Republicans that support something resembling the Fascist countries in WW2. This includes both economic isolationism that restricts imports under the guise of "self sufficiency" while exports are encouraged as a means of projecting power. Privately owned business is encouraged but only those that are willing to support right wing leaders in their political goals are supported by government while those who refuse such support are undermined at every turn.
This is yet another talking point straight out of the Left's playbook. Call Republicans Nazis and compare their ideas to WW II Germany. Yet in reality, taking pride in one's own Country is not something to be shunned. It's not a sin nor is it evil to wish to see one's own Country flourish. Comparing patriotic pride of one's own Country to Nazi Germany or Hitler is the silliest political rhetoric the Left could come up with.

In reality the Left is much closer to Nazi Germany than the right. The main difference being that Hitler wanted to combine Fascism and Socialism into a new form of Government. The Left is almost halfway there already. And speaking of Hitler, ask yourself when is the last time the Democrat party did something productive for Israel? Has any Democrat President ever snubbed Israel's leaders by not meeting with them? Or interfered in Israel's elections by supporting opposing candidates? Supported multiple states? Hmmm. Very telling.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
This is a toxic mix that history tells us can only lead to explosion or implosion, but everything else is deemed "socialism" by the talking heads in order to keep the rank and file in line.
Point of clarification: Redistributing jobs and wealth from the US to elsewhere is Socialism. It's one of the main problems with Socialism vs Capitalism. If your wealth is to be redistributed, what is the motivation for working harder than the other guy? Creating something new? Why work at all? As soon as those currently embracing a move to Socialism finally understand that all the free stuff isn't actually free, that it's paid for in other ways, I think the romance with Socialism will end.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2021, 11:42 PM   #64
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 15,838
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
.... the shift to Socialism started to appear in the NAFTA negotiations with the redistribution of wealth from the US to everywhere else in the World. So in other words, exactly the opposite is true of your stated opinion above. ... When you start redistributing American jobs and wealth worldwide, that's socialism right out of the book, there can be no doubt.
Forget political theory, as you clearly don't know anything about it. However, to make things easy for you, identify the decision makers involved in shifting industry to other locations. It would be helpful to your edification if you considered first the shift of manufacturing jobs from the unionized industrial North to the South, notably in the auto industry, but including such things as standard military pork projects. (Huntsville, AL comes laughingly to mind, a vast federal welfare and jobs project for the cluelessly unschooled, which also affords high school dropouts bragging rights, as if they had accomplished something.) This effort preceeded and paved the way for the mass shift overseas. No unions left to complain and strike. Neat!

What you will find, should you actually do your homework, are political arguments from the GOP against unions, an age-old practice in the US from the times of mining towns and violent union busting. These arguments have come from the Republican Party since the time of Nixon. You will also find myriad executive policy decisions to move production offshore in boardrooms across the US, Apple being the poster boy.

And what is the effect of this transfer? The loss of the middle class, the rise of the disgruntled White man with little education, suddenly bereft of a huge source of easy pickings that heretofore conferred bragging rights as a breadwinner. Let's face it, union jobs in the auto industry were, and remain, one of the very few sources of high income for those who are otherwise unskilled, but trainable. And who do these men blame, as do you? Well, I think we can see the nice complete package here: break unions, break the Democratic Party, break high salaries, break political discourse, and so drive a decades-long effort to lower taxes on the rich with the willing, cheering help of the people you just fleeced.

Brilliant, effective, and in your case, a total, sweeping success. Pretty darn easy when you can openly, laughingly pull the wool down over eyes that, in the best of cases, rarely open anyway. Facts are there, trail of breadcrumbs intact, only a question of proper intellectual due diligence, that age-old bugaboo for White boys in America.
__________________
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 25th March 2021 at 11:44 PM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2021, 01:27 AM   #65
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Forget political theory, as you clearly don't know anything about it. However, to make things easy for you, identify the decision makers involved in shifting industry to other locations. It would be helpful to your edification if you considered first the shift of manufacturing jobs from the unionized industrial North to the South, notably in the auto industry, but including such things as standard military pork projects. (Huntsville, AL comes laughingly to mind, a vast federal welfare and jobs project for the cluelessly unschooled, which also affords high school dropouts bragging rights, as if they had accomplished something.) This effort preceeded and paved the way for the mass shift overseas. No unions left to complain and strike. Neat!

What you will find, should you actually do your homework, are political arguments from the GOP against unions, an age-old practice in the US from the times of mining towns and violent union busting. These arguments have come from the Republican Party since the time of Nixon. You will also find myriad executive policy decisions to move production offshore in boardrooms across the US, Apple being the poster boy.

And what is the effect of this transfer? The loss of the middle class, the rise of the disgruntled White man with little education, suddenly bereft of a huge source of easy pickings that heretofore conferred bragging rights as a breadwinner. Let's face it, union jobs in the auto industry were, and remain, one of the very few sources of high income for those who are otherwise unskilled, but trainable. And who do these men blame, as do you? Well, I think we can see the nice complete package here: break unions, break the Democratic Party, break high salaries, break political discourse, and so drive a decades-long effort to lower taxes on the rich with the willing, cheering help of the people you just fleeced.

Brilliant, effective, and in your case, a total, sweeping success. Pretty darn easy when you can openly, laughingly pull the wool down over eyes that, in the best of cases, rarely open anyway. Facts are there, trail of breadcrumbs intact, only a question of proper intellectual due diligence, that age-old bugaboo for White boys in America.
First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument. It rarely adds anything to the discussion rather than fallacy.

Second, you do understand that NAFTA was negotiated and signed by Bill Clinton who is in no way a Republican? This was a purely Socialist policy that removed tariffs from products competing against American jobs and paved the way for relocation to overseas operations for big business. One can't really blame them. I mean if you can make your product at less than half the cost outside the US and then ship it back into the US market without penalty and sell it at full price, why not?

This policy had nothing to do with North or South or education for that matter. It had mostly to do with the Midwest and production factories of the Rust Belt. Blue collar workers, Union members, the college educated as well as the high school graduate, all lost their jobs equally when companies were enticed by Socialist policies that rewarded them to relocate.

It's actually quite refreshing that you'd attempt to throw in a bit of Racism in the mix. That's the usual go to when Socialist Democrats feel threatened by someone questioning policy. As a refreshing reminder I would remind that it didn't really matter what color of skin someone was draped in, everyone lost their jobs equally under NAFTA.

I realize there are still many Obamites out there that truly believe the best is behind us, but that's only true if we move closer to Socialism. Given fair trade practices Capitalism will trump Socialism every time.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2021, 06:57 AM   #66
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,325
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Second, you do understand that NAFTA was negotiated and signed by Bill Clinton who is in no way a Republican? T
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...rade_Agreement

"The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA. Each submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced significant opposition in both the United States and Canada. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)."

"Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC[18] advisory process[19] and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.[20]"

Seems the process began and nearly completed under Republican Presidents.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2021, 08:55 AM   #67
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,070
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...rade_Agreement

"The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA. Each submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced significant opposition in both the United States and Canada. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)."

"Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC[18] advisory process[19] and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.[20]"

Seems the process began and nearly completed under Republican Presidents.
Protectionism has historically been something Democrats supported while Republicans supported free trade and removing protectionist barriers to international trade. Clinton's support of free trade marked a major and lasting move to the right for the Democratic Party. Protectionism does start to rear it's head in right wing politics once you get really far to the right. Eg fascist countries in WWII were both protectionist and isolationist much like Trump Republicans.


His presidency also marked a significant move to the right on regulation for the Democrats. In response Republicans moved even further to the right on de-regulation. As a result regulatory regimes Republicans supported in the 80's and early 90's are in fact very similar to what Democrats have supported since the mid 90's.

Todays Republicans in contrast don't even have a level of regulation they deem appropriate. When questioned on how much regulation is required the only answer they are capable of is "less". In practice, this is no different than the answer an AnCap would give, which is "none".

Taxation follows a similar pattern. Republicans in the 80's and 90's wanted lower taxes, but Regan actually raised taxes nearly 2 dozen times even though he was openly running deficits as a political strategy. Bush I famously raised taxes when it became obvious that it was required to support the sending he wanted. He could have traded reduced spending on the military for reduced spending on Democratic priorities, but both sides ultimately agreed that raising taxes was a better way to balance the budget. This agreement, along with Clinton's stewardship of it resulted in a balanced budget by the late 90's.

Just as with regulation, though, ask a Republican how high taxes should be and the only answer they can give is "lower" they have no notion of how low so they are effectively indistinguishable from the AnCap position of "no taxation"

Another example is cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade was originally the proposal of Republicans and Conservatives in other countries for dealing with CFC emissions. The scheme has since been adopted by many Democrats as a way to deal with CO2 emissions and it yet another thing Republicans now call "Socialist".

Likewise the "socialist" Obamacare is lifted directly from right wing counter proposals to the Clinton public health care plan proposed in the 1990's. The plan that was mainstream conservative 25 years ago is now far to the left of anything Republicans would support, hence them now calling it "socialist"
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2021, 11:25 AM   #68
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,029
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.

…snip…
Is it? I’ve never heard that claimed before and can’t recall that in any of the many books and articles (about arguing and discussing) I’ve read over the decades. Can you provide a source?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2021, 05:28 PM   #69
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Is it? I’ve never heard that claimed before and can’t recall that in any of the many books and articles (about arguing and discussing) I’ve read over the decades. Can you provide a source?
Certainly. It's a prime example of "Courtier's reply"

Quick ref from Wiki:

A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.


Anytime someone begins with a response mired in fallacy, it's a sure sign they've already lost the argument.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2021, 11:36 PM   #70
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Is it? I’ve never heard that claimed before and can’t recall that in any of the many books and articles (about arguing and discussing) I’ve read over the decades. Can you provide a source?
Robert H Thouless referred to something similar in his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". He called it the "affectation of ignorance". Essentially it was saying "I don't understand you so you must be talking nonsense".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 01:11 AM   #71
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,325
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Robert H Thouless referred to something similar in his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". He called it the "affectation of ignorance". Essentially it was saying "I don't understand you so you must be talking nonsense".
What if the person is actually talking nonsense? Surely every argument doesn't deserve the same weight given to it.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 01:43 AM   #72
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,029
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Certainly. It's a prime example of "Courtier's reply"

Quick ref from Wiki:

A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.


Anytime someone begins with a response mired in fallacy, it's a sure sign they've already lost the argument.
You said “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.” not “mired in fallacy” (whatever you mean by that).

Your claim is still unsupported.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 01:44 AM   #73
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,029
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Robert H Thouless referred to something similar in his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". He called it the "affectation of ignorance". Essentially it was saying "I don't understand you so you must be talking nonsense".
That is not addressing the claim made “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.”
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 04:28 AM   #74
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,867
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You said “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.” not “mired in fallacy” (whatever you mean by that).

Your claim is still unsupported.
If, by condescension, he was referring to:

"A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter."

Then it seems like his claim is supported.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 04:30 AM   #75
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,867
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
What if the person is actually talking nonsense? Surely every argument doesn't deserve the same weight given to it.
If someone is talking nonsense, then that's the issue, and should itself be easily addressed, not some other thing that you think may be correlated with people who talk nonsense.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 05:48 AM   #76
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,029
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
If, by condescension, he was referring to:

"A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter."

Then it seems like his claim is supported.
I would have thought the dictionary definition was more appropriate i.e. “an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.” It is entirely possible to agree with someone in a condescending manner. It is not an argument in itself so I still see no evidence for the claim i.e. “ condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.”

But it’s only a mildly interesting point so I’m happy to leave it there.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 01:12 PM   #77
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Certainly. It's a prime example of "Courtier's reply"

Quick ref from Wiki:

A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.


Anytime someone begins with a response mired in fallacy, it's a sure sign they've already lost the argument.
But your claim was, "When you start redistributing American jobs and wealth worldwide, that's socialism right out of the book, there can be no doubt."

What book defines "socialism" this way? What you are talking about IMO is trade. There can be favorable and unfavorable trade conditions, but that doesn't make it socialism - unless socialism just means any system you don't like.

Last edited by Minoosh; 27th March 2021 at 01:14 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 01:48 PM   #78
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
If, by condescension, he was referring to:

"A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter."

Then it seems like his claim is supported.
I agree - as far as I can tell ChrisBFRPKY is making up his own definition of socialism and applying it to a completely different situation, which (unless I am wrong, always possible) indicates he is not well-qualified to define the word. I don't know if this is due to insufficient knowledge, but it's definitely a possibility. Condescension under those circumstances may not be the most helpful response possible, but I don't agree that it's a fallacy.

If Chris can cite scholarly definitions of socialism "right out of the book" that agree with his personal interpretation, it might improve my opinion of his qualifications, but as it stands I'd say condescension is justifiable - and tempting - but not terribly persuasive.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 03:27 PM   #79
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,325
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
If someone is talking nonsense, then that's the issue, and should itself be easily addressed, not some other thing that you think may be correlated with people who talk nonsense.
I don't think this is something separate from the core argument. That being condescending means the argument is lost.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2021, 06:57 PM   #80
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You said “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.” not “mired in fallacy” (whatever you mean by that).

Your claim is still unsupported.
I really don't get where you're trying to go with this. As applied to his response my statement stands. Now if you wish to take my statement away from his response, and apply it to an overall general claim that's a different meaning than I had used it. That would be something akin to moving the goalpost.

Bottom line, you asked for a citation, I delivered, based on the member's fallacy laden post to which I had responded.

ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.