[stephen50right]

Thank you for your opinion. I can't say that communist leaders are not corrupt when you look at the last days of the cold war ofcourse but you also need not to forget the others that came before. A large chunk of communist and socialist leaders were true believers and lived their life according to the ideology. Breznev was perhaps when the the SU started falling apart. It wasn't necessarily because of Breznev but because of him being senile and unable to fulfill his duties due to his old age.

If we look at Khrushchev for example, then he wasn't really a rich person. After his removal as the chairman, he lived a simple life although being depressed to a degree. You also need to understand that Khruschev was a metalworker back in the day, when was the last time america had a metalworker as a president? Same goes for Stalin for example, he was a meteorologist... Brezhnev was a surveyer and worked in metallurgy... When was the last time America had an average joe as the president?

One small thing to note, the corruption issue in the SU became problematic as mentioned because of Breznev inability to rule the country. (He was too old) Not only that, but some of the Khrustchevs policies against corruption were also removed by Breznevists. (For example the requirement that one-third of officials be replaced at each election was overturned, as was the division in the Party structure between industrial and agricultural sectors. )

Not to say that there is no corruption in communism but i wouldn't say that it is much more than in capitalism. The issue was that safeguards against corruption in the SU were removed over time while in the US/Europe corruption was basically legalised over time in one form or the other.

I did say "money" in my post. However I think it is a given that corruption can go way beyond just money. Let's take Hitler for example. He also lived a modest lifestyle as far as monetary corruption is concerned although he did make a small fortune on his book sales. His dictatorial power, and the evil that he did, was the ultimate corruption, way WAY beyond just the money.

Yes, corruption can happen in any society, but in a capitalist society, many of which are democracies, corruption, especially corruption by dictatorial power is difficult if not near impossible to attain. Whereby in communism, given the nature of its nanny state philosophy, political corruption is basically a certainty.

[Godstud]

You could look at the USA, today and easily say that capitalism also leads to corruption, with 100% certainty. USA is probably at its most corrupt point in its entire history.

[JohnRawls]

I did say "money" in my post. However I think it is a given that corruption can go way beyond just money. Let's take Hitler for example. He also lived a modest lifestyle as far as monetary corruption is concerned although he did make a small fortune on his book sales. His power, and the evil that he did, was the ultimate corruption, way WAY beyond just the money.

Yes, corruption can happen in any society, but in a capitalist society, many of which are democracies, corruption, especially corruption by dictatorial power is difficult if not near impossible to attain. Whereby in communism, given the nature of its nanny state philosophy, political corruption is basically a certainty.

If we consider how socialism was implemented than i tend to agree that if you expand the meaning of corruption to more than just monetary gain then communist/socialist implementation does cause more corruption than capitalism although it is a complicated question actually.

Democracy positions itself as if anybody can get elected but is that really the case? Does a candidate with corporate backing has the same amount of chance to win an election as a average joe? Is this not corruption in itself? Does a more skilled candidate with no backing has the same chance to win as a less competent one but with financial backing?

Western European forms of government do have more safeguards against different forms of corruption compared to USSR and its offshoots though that is indisputable.

The problem between American model and the USSR is that both consider different things as the end goal. If USSR considered "Equality of Life" or "Equality of outcomes" as the main goal than the us considers "Efficiency of the economy" as the main goal.

Western European system seems to be trying at least to consider both of them.

[JohnRawls]

@Godstud

You could look at the USA, today and easily say that capitalism also leads to corruption, with 100% certainty. USA is probably at its most corrupt point in its entire history.

Well that is good then. US is still the strongest nation in the world, even at its current state. In reality you are over-dramatising it though.

[stephen50right]

If we consider how socialism was implemented than i tend to agree that if you expand the meaning of corruption to more than just monetary gain then communist/socialist implementation does cause more corruption than capitalism although it is a complicated question actually.

Democracy positions itself as if anybody can get elected but is that really the case? Does a candidate with corporate backing has the same amount of chance to win an election as a average joe? Is this not corruption in itself? Does a more skilled candidate with no backing has the same chance to win as a less competent one but with financial backing?

Western European forms of government do have more safeguards against different forms of corruption compared to USSR and its offshoots though that is indisputable.

The problem between American model and the USSR is that both consider different things as the end goal. If USSR considered "Equality of Life" or "Equality of outcomes" as the main goal than the us considers "Efficiency of the economy" as the main goal.

Western European system seems to be trying at least to consider both of them.

Interesting points. I think your points would be more valid about monetary corruption in democracies say 20 or even 10 years ago. I'm not saying your point doesn't have merit today, but the advent of the internet has made accessibility of little known candidates and their political ideas to virtually everyone. Yes, that little known candidate still has to get folks to click on their YouTube video to see their presentation. But with enough determination and hard work, that can be done.

Once enough people see that candidate's ideas, and are convinced that person can be a good leader, then they will donate money, and the candidate may pickup larger corporate donations as well for TV advertising.

I agree with ya on the complexity...so i'll leave it here before it becomes an off topic dissertation.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The "$3 million" figure was pulled out of the Express's arse. Anyone British will know you cannot trust the Express to tell you correctly if it's raining outside their window, let alone something about a foreigner who is to their left, but I'd have hoped that people here would still have noticed they gave no basis at all for their figure.

Fox News commented on this, and said

While that number appears to have been the total cost for all 3,500 tickets to the event on how food innovation can save humanity from climate change, which went for 850 euros, or $925, a piece, it still leaves open the question of how much Obama got.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... dents.html

and 850 euros was the cost of the most expensive 4 day ticket:

The event is open to the public. Seeds & Chips 2017 tickets range from 60 euros per day to 100 euros for the four days of kermesse (discounts are available for those who buy in advance); The one for 90 euro pass conferences (ticket valid for 9 May) to 850 euros ( Vip Platinum pass for four days).

https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... rev=search

So obviously, you can't possibly expect to work out a keynote speaker's fee by multiplying a 4 day ticket price by the number of tickets. All we actually know is "Obama gave the keynote address". My guess is that he got paid something. But "Obama Probably Paid for Environmentalist Speech in Milan" just doesn't have that clickbait quality, does it?

[AFAIK]

Some countries deliberately underpay civil servants so that they have to resort to corruption in order to make ends meet and then anytime you want to get rid of a potential challenger or dissenter you can prosecute them for corruption and purge them under the guise of legalism.

I think people overstate the impact of corruption. If a company has to pay a bribe to win a contract that is effectively a private auction with the largest bid winning the contract. From that companies perspective it is the same as a public auction since the highest bid wins the contract. Or if you have to pay 10% to a gatekeeper that's no different than paying a tax of 10% in terms of cash flow.

[Finfinder]

I've assumed that to be a bankster, you have to be a banker. The root of the dislike is (I've presumed) found in religious dialogues against usury. Someone who isn't a banker or an usurer then can't be a "bankster".

This is on the tail of Obama receiving half a million for a speech to wall street banksters. The left usually criticizes people who do this but many of they don't seem to hold themselves to the same standards.

Good post it doesn't take much to get the left to respond to an article and prove their hypocrisy and double standards they seem to live by.

Surprised there isn't more outrage from the left on Obama's contribution to destroying the environment.

BY: JOSEPH CURL MAY 10, 2017

Obama Takes Private Jet, 14-Car Motorcade — to Climate Change Speech

Former president Barack Obama cares about the environment. A lot. So much so that he took time out of his busy schedule of hob-nobbing with celebrities on a super yacht in Tahiti to attend a "climate change" summit in Italy.

But America's first black president wasn't so green. He took a private jet to Milan, then rolled into the city in a 14-car motorcade — with a helicopter keeping watch overhead. He dumped enough carbon into the environment to kill a small forest.

Yet he wasn't done there. Then he opened his mouth, pouring more hot air into the atmosphere. "During his roughly 100-minute remarks in Milan, Italy, the former U.S. president talked about himself 216 times," according to a count by The American Mirror.

Obama said “I” 168 times, “me” or “my” 40 times, and said “we,” “us” or “our” referring to his family eight times, the Mirror wrote.

In a Q & A period, Obama was asked how he had changed over his eight years in the White House. “One of the dangers of being in the public eye, being in the spotlight, being in positions of power is how it will change your soul. That you start believing your own hype. You start believing that you deserve all the attention. I actually found that I became more humble the longer I was in office.”

Ha.

As for his "humility," Obama was paid $3 million to make his speech on climate change at the “Seed & Chips: The Global Food Innovation Summit” in Milan. And upon his arrival, Obama headed straight for the "extravagant Park Hyatt hotel, which can cost up to £7,100 (€8,400) a night," the UK Express reports. And he was so humble that he had the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana museum and the city’s cathedral closed off to visitors so he could take private tours.

The Daily Mail reports Obama stayed in a sprawling $20,000-a-night hilltop villa in Tuscany after his "humble" speech.

Obama has been gallivanting around the globe since he left office, kite-sailing with billionaire Richard Branson at his private island in the Caribbean and chilling with Oprah Winfrey and Bruce Springsteen on a 450-foot yacht in the South Pacific. No word if the other climate change whiner Leonardo DiCaprio was on board.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16262/oba ... seph-curl#

[Drlee]

Second the notion.

And I would add to John Rawls the reminder that one must consider where it is that the SU came from. There is a vast difference between the complete autocracy of imperial Russia (essentially owned serfs being living memory) and the nations of the west with their several hundred year history of nominal democracy and suffrage. So consider what communism in the SU was replacing and.... Then there is the utter devastation of WWII. Bad for the west but unthinkable for the SU. Nations destroyed and by some estimates as high as 30-40 million deaths from a population in Russia proper of 115 million (170 million overall).

All that to say that the proof of the pudding (as they say) is in the eating. And although the SU was no workers paradise it was vastly better than what, in its recent memory, it had been.

Are they better off today? From an individual worker standpoint that is debatable. Even more so if we consider that the SU before the fall was a work in progress cut short. From the revolution to the end of the SU was 74 years. Compare what they did to the US.

In the 74 years following the US revolution.....In 1850....we had managed to maintain slavery in many states, denied women the right to vote and had yet to embrace the cause of equal protection under the law. And we started out as a country with several hundred years experience with parliamentary rule.

When I was a child we were taught that the USSR was a horrible place and by US standards of the time it was certainly no affluent liberal democracy. But given what it accomplished it is unfair to consider it a failure.

Finfinder's nonsense is not even worthy of a reply.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Maybe we can all agree there is a reason that Democratic presidents are so sought after for speeches and Republican presidents are not?

[Finfinder]

Maybe we can all agree there is a reason that Democratic presidents are so sought after for speeches and Republican presidents are not?

Republicans made their fame and fortune in the private sector before they became politicians,. The Democrats are in politics for the fame and fortune.

[Drlee]

Republicans made their fame and fortune in the private sector before they became politicians,. The Democrats are in politics for the fame and fortune.

What utter nonsense.

[stephen50right]

Republicans made their fame and fortune in the private sector before they became politicians,. The Democrats are in politics for the fame and fortune.

For the most part, that is exactly right.

Most Republicans Party politicians come from working people, business people, religious leaders, military, and other great pillars of society.

Most Democratic Party politicians are scumbag lawyers in search of more power.

[Drlee]

If you are going to troll you have to troll better. Here is the thing about trolling. One is supposed to do it in such a manner that one does not look stupid. That is the key, you see.

[MememyselfandIJK]

@Finfinder @stephen50right Please stop with the reactionary nonsense. Republicans get rich by exploiting workers and acting like the bourgeoisie (Read "accomplishing the American Dream"). Democrats get rich as a side product of promoting change for the better (instead of a spiral into the past which reactionaries like Trump want). We are in the 21st century. Conservatism is outdated, and you really need to move on.

P.S. Last time I checked, Obama's wealth is but a tiny fraction of Trump's wealth, and the former has done more positive things for our nation and the world such as granting rights to LGBTQ and making a first step to healthcare for all.

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder @stephen50right Please stop with the reactionary nonsense. Republicans get rich by exploiting workers and acting like the bourgeoisie (Read "accomplishing the American Dream"). Democrats get rich as a side product of promoting change for the better (instead of a spiral into the past which reactionaries like Trump want). We are in the 21st century. Conservatism is outdated, and you really need to move on.

P.S. Last time I checked, Obama's wealth is but a tiny fraction of Trump's wealth, and the former has done more positive things for our nation and the world such as granting rights to LGBTQ and making a first step to healthcare for all.

Why are you changing the subject, you specifically said presidents?
Reagan, both Bush's, and now Trump made their money and had fame in the private sector before they became president.

If you are going to troll you have to troll better. Here is the thing about trolling. One is supposed to do it in such a manner that one does not look stupid. That is the key, you see.

What utter nonsense.

I will agree with you, having 10,000 posts you must know a thing or two about trolling. Maybe you get paid to post I don't know ,but this get off my lawn thing is getting old. Move along.

[Godstud]

Last time I checked, Obama's wealth is but a tiny fraction of Trump's wealth,

Yep, Obama didn't have a daddy give him $millions, and a silver spoon sticking out of his ass/mouth. Obama had to go out and earn money.

John F Kennedy, a Democrat, was worth $124 million when he became President, so he was already exceptionally wealthy. Drlee is correct. You are wrong Finfinder.

[Pants-of-dog]

Both parties are capitalist parties, and both are right wing. Is anyone really surprised or shocked that Obama is now making money hand over fist?

Having said that, environmental groups should not waste money on such frivolous events.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Why are you changing the subject, you specifically said presidents?
Reagan, both Bush's, and now Trump made their money and had fame in the private sector before they became president.

Sorry if I seemed off topic, I was replying to one of your earlier posts.

But may I repeat that Robber Barons do no reflect our American values of equality and freedom from oppression.

[Drlee]

Reagan, both Bush's, and now Trump made their money and had fame in the private sector before they became president.

What is it that you admire about this? I am truly puzzled. Reagan was a B actor and union president. Bush was a war hero and millionaire but not over the top wealthy. He was really a career government person. Bush 2 made money in oil. Trump inherited a construction business in 1974 that was worth over a billion dollars in today's money. Compared to simply investing in the DOW he has done rather poorly, though he seems to have had fun.

Tell me why you think these people are especially qualified to help the majority of Americans? Because of trickle down? If there is one thing we know from the historical record it is that trickle down does not work. Despite all of the best efforts of republicans to try it, the only thing that has happened it the concentration of wealth at the top.

Do not feel all alone. There are a great many people who have bought this "job creators" nonsense. Even the conservative pro-business Forbes agrees:
[url]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2 ... 562c9779e4[/url]

The take-away from the article:

Bottom Line

I am all in favor of government doing less, spending less, and extracting less from the citizenry in taxes. There may be sound rationales for skewing the tax cuts that emerge from such reforms toward the highest earners. Attempting to foster long-term job creation in the economy at large is not one of them.

But they have vast management experience..... No they don't.

But note this. Trump is a brand not a business. He sells the Trump brand. He is not actually building stuff anymore. He is acquiring and re-branding it. Often he reduces employees in the process.

Also from Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/06/17/job-creators/#6d9bfaff184d

So Finfinder. Are you smart? Let me ask you a question. What was it in 2008 that caused unemployment to go from 4% to almost 10%? Do you think it was a sudden increase in government regulations and taxes or a collapse in demand?

We are a consumer economy. If you want to grow the economy you must put more money in the hands of consumers.

So you tell me what it is that Trump promised that puts more money in the hands of consumers.

Here, in simple terms, is something that most people don't understand. Let's look at those (few) coal miners. The problem is not getting them a job. We have "created" so many jobs under Obama that they could all work. We are essentially at full employment now. They might find it hard to get a job in their area but if they are willing to move they can get a job. But that is not the issue really. The issue is that these relatively unskilled workers (or those possessing skills so specific to the coal industry that they are essentially unskilled for other jobs) earn $50K per year. They do not possess the skills to earn more either at home or elsewhere.

Do you, as a capitalist, believe that they should be exempt from free market principles? Do you as a conservative believe in a vastly higher minimum wage? If the answer to either of these questions is 'no' then you must accept that there are going to be casualties as the nature of work changes and markets come and go. You must also accept that you and yours may be a casualty. And you must accept your fate even while the very richest Americans are getting so wealthy that they could not spend the money if they tried.