| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what do you do when they are both completely corrupt? Because thats the situation we find ourselves in.
One is corrupt because the other is buying it.
My honest answer is "Smash capital" but it's doubtful that's going to happen :p
If we're stuck with Capitalism, then we must cripple it, least it rage out of control as it's doing now.
|
So what do you do when they are both completely corrupt? Because thats the situation we find ourselves in.Clearly all our money and major decisions needs to be in the hands of the big money owners, they'd never betray us. They're not corrupt like the government is!
*Sends children to work to pay for food out of company script*
*Works 16 hour shifts every day*
*Watches wife die in a factory fire*
Because giving the capitalist class full autonomy has never betrayed us before...right?
We choose the lesser of the two evils.
We attempt to create a system based on a series of checks and balances, where power consolidation is constantly challenged.
It's the worst form of government, except for all the others.
So what do you do when they are both completely corrupt? Because thats the situation we find ourselves in.Clearly all our money and major decisions needs to be in the hands of the big money owners, they'd never betray us. They're not corrupt like the government is!
*Sends children to work to pay for food out of company script*
*Works 16 hour shifts every day*
*Watches wife die in a factory fire*
Because giving the capitalist class full autonomy has never betrayed us before...right?
We choose the lesser of the two evils.
We attempt to create a system based on a series of checks and balances, where power consolidation is constantly challenged.
It's the worst form of government, except for all the others.
LOL @ checks and balances. You mean like only Congress can declare war so that the commander in chief cant just pursue war any time he pleases? (see: every president since Roosevelt) Or did you mean checks and balances like only The judicial branch may order a wiretap or sign a warrant? (see: Dubya and Obama). Or did you perhaps mean the ultimate checks and balances found in the late, lamented Bill of Rights, most notably the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments? I agree that a Constitutional Republic (not a democracy) is the best type of government. Too bad we dont have one of those. /rant Im not sure an all powerful and all controlling government is necessarily the lesser of two evils. You dont have to buy what a business sells. Unless a law tells you that you must. Dont get me wrong, my main beef with our current government is that only work in the interest of the wealthy and elite. Thats why I argue for a smaller, more accountable, more transparent government. As Cirno stated somewhere before, "The Government isnt too big, its just too big in the wrong places." But now I expect that he will tell me that Im wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL @ checks and balances. You mean like only Congress can declare war so that the commander in chief cant just pursue war any time he pleases? (see: every president since Roosevelt) Or did you mean checks and balances like only The judicial branch may order a wiretap or sign a warrant? (see: Dubya and Obama). Or did you perhaps mean the ultimate checks and balances found in the late, lamented Bill of Rights, most notably the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments? I agree that a Constitutional Republic (not a democracy) is the best type of government. Too bad we dont have one of those. /rant Im not sure an all powerful and all controlling government is necessarily the lesser of two evils. You dont have to buy what a business sells. Unless a law tells you that you must. Dont get me wrong, my main beef with our current government is that only work in the interest of the wealthy and elite. Thats why I argue for a smaller, more accountable, more transparent government. As Cirno stated somewhere before, "The Government isnt too big, its just too big in the wrong places." But now I expect that he will tell me that Im wrong.
The checks and balances are still there - they've been overwritten by chuckleheads that heed not the wisdom of those that came before them.
A few snippets of such wisdom, if I may:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." (attributed to Ben Franklin)
"Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die." (attributed to Dwight D. Eisenhower)
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." (attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." (attributed to Abraham Lincoln)
"That's one of the major lessons: no president should ever take this nation to war without full public debate in the Congress and/or in the public." (attributed to Robert McNamara)
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." (attributed to Edward R. Murrow)
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children (America), the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done." (attributed to Ronald Reagan)
"Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves." (origination unknown)
"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance." (attributed to Woodrow Wilson)
"Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive." (attributed to Teddy Roosevelt)
"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves." (attributed to D.H. Lawrence)
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
"There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."
(all three attributed to JFK)
"Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies." (attributed to RFK)
"We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights." (attributed to Felix Frankfurter)
"We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it." (attributed to William Faulkner)
"Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped."
"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."
(both attributed to Calvin Coolidge)
And most importantly:
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." (attributed to Samuel Adams)
Stalin would be proud...
...the ghost of my relatives murdered by his socialist/communist regime...not so much.
Blaming Marx for Stalin is like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima.
Blaming Marx for Stalin is like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima.Stalin would be proud...
...the ghost of my relatives murdered by his socialist/communist regime...not so much.
Nonsense, Marx created the seed idea for socialism and subsequent next step - communism. Stop trying to paint him as a misunderstood genius.
No different than Eugenics garbage pushed by Rüdin.A violent ideology (marxism) that necessitates revolution and theft for it to function properly.
And yes, Einstein (and men like him) were at least partially responsible for Hiroshima. Einstein admitted culpability and regret on many occasions after the war - that he suggested that the bomb be made in the first place and that the bomb was actually used.
Stalin would be proud...
I doubt it. Revolutionary socialists numbered pretty high on his eradicate and kill list (see Moscow Trials).
My condolences on your ancestors, however.
Nonsense, Marx created the seed idea for socialism and subsequent next step - communism.
No, he didn't. There were many socialist theorizers (Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, for example) before Marx.
Or Adam Smith for Hitler...
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was a description, not a prognosis, of how capitaism was working in the late 18th-century.
And while I realize that the comparison between Adam Smith and Hitler was probably facetious, I hasten to point out that, at least on slavery, AS was a far-more consistent democrat than most of our Founding Fathers.
Or Adam Smith for Hitler...Blaming Marx for Stalin is like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima.Stalin would be proud...
...the ghost of my relatives murdered by his socialist/communist regime...not so much.
No, that just shows your ignorance. Seems like you guys (marxist) will go to any length/depth to defend your leader.
Wealth of Nations does not equal Mein Kampf nor does the Invisible Hand correlate with National Socialism, you guys are actually closer to owning that one.Hitler was an anti-capitalist and even though he hated Marxism they (as a party) did espouse socialist ideology - instead of it being based on workers/owners of production it was based on race, same garbage.
Still pretty pathetic with the Adam Smith reach.
No, he didn't. There were many socialist theorizers (Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, for example) before Marx.
Nonsense, Marx created the seed idea for socialism and subsequent next step - communism.
Yeah, I understand that, communism as a practice/idea (at least on a tribal level) goes back way further in time than when it was popularized in the last few centuries. Marx/Engles just put it in a nice package for popular consumption.
No, that just shows your ignorance. Seems like you guys (marxist) will go to any length/depth to defend your leader.
It's not because you read a book and try to understand it for what it is rather than for what others told you about it, meaning accepting to make your own idea about what is good/bad right/wrong with the theory, makes you a "follower" of the author.
You can accept some ideas from Marx without being a brainwashed stalinist, a communist, or even a marxist you know. I'ts called Social democracy, and it works pretty well here in Canada. (for now, we'll see what the conservative government will do about that)
I mean, we do have public health care, and we do tax the rich a little more to pay for that and other things. Redistribution of wealth was at the core of Marx ideas. Again, you can take this part and leave out some things like the abolition of private property. you're an intelligent guy, you can read a book with a open mind and without being brainwashed.
And I hope you know reading Marx was frowned upon if not forbidden under Stalin.
Sorry for your acestors, but grudge makes for bad politics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what do you do when they are both completely corrupt? Because thats the situation we find ourselves in.
We amend things so that the two corrupt forces are in opposition to one another, rather than in cahoots.
Like many of us in the U.S., I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Enough, in fact, to break my self-imposed exile from the off-topic board.
To me it's really quite simple: Our country has overspent. It doesn't matter why or how, or which party is more culpable -- it is done, and we're all on the hook for it. To fix it, we're all going to have to sacrifice. That means more taxes at the top, and fewer services at the bottom. Being the liberal I am, I happen to believe those most able to shoulder a larger burden should be asked to do so, but beliefs aside, it should be obvious to both sides that we're past the point where either spending cuts or increased revenue alone can get us out of this jam. Yet the majority of people seem to be sending a simple message to the representatives: Let the other guy pay, but don't touch mine. Don't raise *my* taxes. Don't cut the services *I* need. Bereft of a sense of national unity, we have no empathy for our fellow citizens. But like it or not, we're in this together, and unless we can rekindle those feelings somehow we'll run right off the cliff -- together.
Are the politicians complicit? Of course. But ultimately
Now back to your regularly-scheduled ideological finger pointing.
Are the politicians complicit? Of course. But ultimatelyNow back to your regularly-scheduled ideological finger pointing.
- Hey, we have a small problem. I used my banks to make you a loan you could not pay because the housing market failed. I took your house leaving you with debts, sold it to make money, lost most of this money on a speculative bubble that created no employment and this economic situation. It cost you your job and your insurance. Now, we'll need to cut services to pay for that because I have not be paying taxes and using fiscal evasion for the past 40 years. Well, what do you want, I needed the money in order to make you a loan on your house in the first place... so, what do we do?
- Oh, jeez. I won't point an ideological finger at you sir, I'll do my part, lets compromise.- Ok, I'll give you back an really small part of the profit I did not hide in an oversee bank, but we'll still cut your services, is that ok with you?
- Yeah, sounds fair!
Please!
|
|
Or Adam Smith for Hitler...Blaming Marx for Stalin is like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima.Stalin would be proud...
...the ghost of my relatives murdered by his socialist/communist regime...not so much.
No, that just shows your ignorance. Seems like you guys (marxist) will go to any length/depth to defend your leader.
Wealth of Nations does not equal Mein Kampf nor does the Invisible Hand correlate with National Socialism, you guys are actually closer to owning that one.Hitler was an anti-capitalist and even though he hated Marxism they (as a party) did espouse socialist ideology - instead of it being based on workers/owners of production it was based on race, same garbage.
Still pretty pathetic with the Adam Smith reach.
I should have gone Mussolini, since he was the "Supercaptialism" guy at one point, but the statement was more an analogy to someone making an observation and hypothesis regarding things he is observing (Einstein, Adam Smith) vs the people who took the ideal and used it to justify/accomplish mass destruction.
In hindsight, I should have gone Darwin for Eugenics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Hey, we have a small problem. I used my banks to make you a loan you could not pay because the housing market failed. I took your house leaving you with debts, sold it to make money, lost most of this money on a speculative bubble that created no employment and this economic situation. It cost you your job and your insurance. Now, we'll need to cut services to pay for that because I have not be paying taxes and using fiscal evasion for the past 40 years. Well, what do you want, I needed the money in order to make you a loan on your house in the first place... so, what do we do?
- Oh, jeez. I won't point an ideological finger at you sir, I'll do my part, lets compromise.
- Ok, I'll give you back an really small part of the profit I did not hide in an oversee bank, but we'll still cut your services, is that ok with you?
- Yeah, sounds fair!Please!
I don't suppose it would help if I reiterated that entrenched positions like this one -- and it's right-wing counterpart, that we're stealing from the job creators!1! -- have together brought us to the brink of default?
For the record, I suspect I largely agree with you as to why we're in this mess, but I have no interest in an (ideologically pure) Pyrrhic victory.
Nonsense, Marx created the seed idea for socialism and subsequent next step - communism.
No he didn't -- he simply put them down on paper. The ideas have been there since the Romans at least in the form of "bread and circuses" -- Caesar gave away food to the poor -- socialism. Regardless of his reasons it was still what it was.
And that's simply the easiest version to point out -- there are many others across multiple cultures, the idea that a government and people should take care of those that are less fortunate wasn't invented by Marx, and wasn't even correctly represented by Marx -- he simply is given credit for giving it a name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't suppose it would help if I pointed out (again) that entrenched positions like this one (and it's right-wing counterpart) have brought us to the brink of default?For the record, I suspect I largely agree with you as to why we're in this mess, but I have no interest in an (ideologically pure) Pyrrhic victory.
I myself think it's a lack of backbone and the desire to always be able to compromise that is at the root of the problem. If one man has 100$ and the other 1$ and they both put 25 cents to repair the damage cause mainly by the decision of the 100$ owner, I don't call that a compromise, but a ripoff.
I have not plaided for an "ideologically pure" victory (whatever that means to you) but for common sense. The important word being common. I'm not asking for the abolition of the capitalist system (and for the record I don't think it would be a good thing) but for social and economics policies that are both legal and regulated.
Call this an "entrenched position" if you must, but in a negociation, when you are the underdog, you need to stand firm and reclaim your rights throught the political system.
Democracy is a flimsy thing. Sometimes you have to dig a trench in order to protect it.
If "no taxation without representation" still stands as the basis of a democratic system, I find it alarming that people getting the most representation are the ones without taxation due to fiscal evasion.
As I said, I am not american (I'm canadian) but I have a great respect for your political system, your constitution. I was in Boston for the 4th of July, and amazed again by the values your country is built upon.
I'm also afraid when I see a few people in your country are sabotaging their own democratic principles of accountability. Afraid because we are next on the line and if you americans don't stand up for those values, there will be repercussions not only in your country but all around the world. I'm adressing you as a fellow democrat, not as a marxist, an idealist or whatnot.
I myself think it's a lack of backbone and the desire to always be able to compromise that is at the root of the problem. If one man has 100$ and the other 1$ and they both put 25 cents to repair the damage cause mainly by the decision of the 100$ owner, I don't call that a compromise, but a ripoff.
I have not plaided for an "ideologically pure" victory (whatever that means to you) but for common sense. The important word being common. I'm not asking for the abolition of the capitalist system (and for the record I don't think it would be a good thing) but for social and economics policies that are both legal and regulated.
Call this an "entrenched position" if you must, but in a negociation, when you are the underdog, you need to stand firm and reclaim your rights throught the political system.
Democracy is a flimsy thing. Sometimes you have to dig a trench in order to protect it.
If "no taxation without representation" still stands as the basis of a democratic system, I find it alarming that people getting the most representation are the ones without taxation due to fiscal evasion.
As I said, I am not american (I'm canadian) but I have a great respect for your political system, your constitution. I was in Boston for the 4th of July, and amazed again by the values your country is built upon.
I'm also afraid when I see a few people in your country are sabotaging their own democratic principles of accountability. Afraid because we are next on the line and if you americans don't stand up for those values, there will be repercussions not only in your country but all around the world. I'm adressing you as a fellow democrat, not as a marxist,...
I do not "want" to compromise. No ever really does -- that's kinda the point. What I *do* want is to be practical. One party controls the House, the other the Senate -- which means we either compromise or we don't act at all, and therefore default. I don't like it, but that is simply the way it is.
Once again, I agree with much of what you say, but how do you propose we stand up for our values, if not through our elected representatives? Violence? Revolution? Might makes right? I'm not quite sure what you believe should be done here.
Kill 'em all: lobbyists, politicos, (most of the) lawyers, sycophants, hangers-on, toadies, the works. ;)
I do not "want" to compromise. No ever really does -- that's kinda the point. What I *do* want is to be practical. One party controls the House, the other the Senate -- which means we either compromise or we don't act at all, and therefore default. I don't like it, but that is simply the way it is.
Once again, I agree with much of what you say, but how do you propose we stand up for our values, if not through our elected representatives? Violence? Revolution? Might makes right? I'm not quite sure what you believe should be done here.
I don't believe violence is ever a good solution, and I'm aware of the difficulties. I would say, get out in the street, pacifically, and write, (and I mean flood), the House and the Senate with emails and letters. It will take you 20 minutes to write a letter. Talk bout it with your friends, and get them to do the same.
Democracy is not just on the election day.
Again, I know, talk is cheap. I could do that more often myself, and I surely won't say Canadians are more involved in politics than American - that would be false.
p.s. The operation of our banking and monetary system is a rather arcane subject that is not well understood by many Americans (for instance, a survey of 500 Ivy League PhD's found that not a single one could clearly and properly articulate it), so this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544 should help. Forgive the poor animation...the info is solid, though.
Seriously, computer technology and the use of computers for communication is NOT going away... ever.
Learn how to linkify your links. Please.
.
.
.
On the subject of Marx, I think it bears mentioning that he didn't actually "create" anything...when writing the Communist Manifesto, he was working not as a creative force, but as a ghost writer, setting to prose what his employers ( a group of figures calling themselves "The League of Just Men") presented to him. This is the reason that Karl Marx's name didn't appear on The Communist Manifesto for the first twenty years of its publication.
On the subject of the thread itself...well, I don't normally read every post in a thread that goes more than one page, but I did this time. Well done, all of you. A civil, well-thought out set of comments, replete with evidence and well articulated.
It's just a pity you're all wrong. Before the flaming begins, I am not attempting to insult anybody's intelligence, politics, patriotism, religion or belief systems. I am merely attempting to point out that everybody is looking for the source of (and thereby, the solution to) our economic problems in the wrong place. Our economic woes do not derive from one party or another, nor do they stem from the decisions taken by this administration or any other. The problems go much deeper than that, they are systemic in nature. That is to say: The problems we are having are a direct consequence of the system by which the economy itself is organized and delineated.
I'm not talking about "capitalism", as that is a philosophy, not a system. In order to implement that philosophy (or any other), a system must be developed and employed. In this case, I'm talking about our banking and monetary system...that is, the system by which the money comes into existence (as it must, in order to have an "economy").
The root of our economic problems is the fact that with the exception of coins struck by the US Mint (somewhat less than three percent of our money supply), every dollar in circulation was borrowed-at interest-into existence, and that no dollar can come into existence unless it is borrowed at interest. Those of you waiting for some conspiracy rant about the Federal Reserve and the "Illuminati" can keep waiting, I don't do conspiracy. What is evident, though, is that every means tried within the confines of our current system to stabilize our economy and preserve the value of our currency have failed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or an economist to see (or at least, it shouldn't) that a serious examination of the underlying system itself is in order, and that it should become the second highest priority of our government, and of We, The People.
p.s. The operation of our banking and monetary system is a rather arcane subject that is not well understood by many Americans (for instance, a survey of 500 Ivy League PhD's found that not a single one could clearly and properly articulate it), so this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544 should help. Forgive the poor animation...the info is solid, though.
|
|
Your response is a link to the matrix?
How about this for an actual intellectual discussion of wealth, off topic but interesting in it's own right.
At some point, a long time ago people found a relatively rare substance that was easily made into coin, which could also be broken into pieces of relative value.
You can't eat gold. It isn't particularly useful for tools. All and all, it's a pretty crappy metal for utility for some of the specific reasons it is valuable as currency.
Now at some point, thanks to technology, paper became something we could actually produce with relative ease. And so, it became the unit of currency rather than gold.
If the global economy collapses, truly collapses, gold will not hold any more value than paper. In fact, it will likely hold less, since at least you can start a fire with paper.
We have a social contract where we all agree that the goods and services we produce can be paid for in a currency, that others will accept in indirect exchange. Mainly, because it's easier than each person having to become a mini-mart, hoping we run into someone who has the things we want, and wants things we have.
This specialization needs a free market to be successful, as what is "needed" changes over time, in the same way golds value as a currency declined with the advent of a more viable method of denoting abstract exchangeable value.
This is where capitalism is good.
However, all of this is predicated on the social contract being backed up by someone we all believe to be a relatively honest broker. A fair arbiter who will enforce laws regardless of personal outcome.
This is the role of Government.
When you get right down to it, it is all a house of cards. I am giving people paper for food, as people gave people shiny useless pieces of metal for food.
The real issue is, what if we are unwilling to give goods and services for the paper. What if the bonds issued cease to have the faith bestowed in the social contract?
It is, after all, just a piece of paper.
I am sitting in a house that by social contract I own, with the belief that should a visigoth appear and attempt to take it from me by force, the state shall protect me and imprison the visigoth, despite his being stronger or better armed than me.
Occasionally, it is important to remember this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a charade and it's all nonsense.
Once again, the Democrats are endangering the very things that, allegedly, they're elected to defend.
From what I've read, the proposed Obama cuts into Social Security and Medicare are HUGE--and the proposed tax increases are nothing. Meanwhile, of course, the imperialist warbeast staggers on to whatever battlefield the Commander-in-Chief or his international buddies decide is next, funds flowing freely.
The working class, the poor and the lower-stratums of "middle-class"/professionaldom have been taking it up the ass for, what? almost half a century? The buying-power of our wages has dropped and the prices of everything that you need to live and prosper has exploded. Meanwhile, we're being worked harder and for less.
And we're supposed to tighten our belts and be happy because the rich might (not if the Tea Party gets their way!) have to pay a tax on thier jets?
Meanwhile, I read over on Alex Jones's site that some kind of GAO oversight of the Fed (whatever those things are) revealed that the Fed had been secretly giving out money to all the financial firms that got tax-paid bail-outs in 2008! I think they make this "money"-s@~& up.
Just because I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean I'm not going to talk!
Your response is a link to the matrix?
Indeed. As near as I can tell, sieglord was arguing that all of our economic problems are a result of fiat money, which I do believe to be correct. Unfortunately, rather than just write that, he posted a rambling, comically verbose, and frankly rather opaque essay -- immediately bringing to mind the clip I linked.
This is the role of Government.
I agree -- the government is absolutely existential for the continuation of capitalism and our current economy -- you can't have the USA economic system without the USA government.
A good documentary : Lifting the Veil.
I do have some reserves, but you can make your own opinion.
I ties in to the subject at hand around 1:43.
Just take it all. All of it. For ONE year. Say thanks and point them to the line for 2nd mortgages (on their multiple homes) and remind them they'll be just fine in 12 months. We've left a much higher percentage of poor/homeless people out to dry for as long as anyone can remember, what's the deal with this 2%?
Yes! Yes!
That's what I'm talking about!
...but why only for 12 months?
Stalin would be proud...
...the ghost of my relatives murdered by his socialist/communist regime...not so much.
Rich Russians where long gone by the time Stalin really had the levers of power. It was mainly poor agricultural peasants that died under Stalin's regime.
Rich Russians where long gone by the time Stalin really had the levers of power. It was mainly poor agricultural peasants that died under Stalin's regime.
Just take it all. All of it. For ONE year. Say thanks and point them to the line for 2nd mortgages (on their multiple homes) and remind them they'll be just fine in 12 months. We've left a much higher percentage of poor/homeless people out to dry for as long as anyone can remember, what's the deal with this 2%?
Yes! Yes!
That's what I'm talking about!
...but why only for 12 months?
Stalin would be proud...
...the ghost of my relatives murdered by his socialist/communist regime...not so much.
There were people who still had personal wealth and property, many actually. Some were hoping that the incoming Germans would save them, alleviate the situation (as it was). Had they been nice to the citizens instead of executing them with their Einsatzgruppen they (3rd Reich) would have actually defeated the Soviet Union.
They weren't rich, but there were still many well off - many who had to hide their money and more who had to leave behind their accumulated wealth from their work/businesses and also their family homes, etc, just to get the hell out of the SU.
Raises taxes won't help.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/wsj-hausers-law.html
People like to make this really silly simplifications about economics. Such as predicting that a 10% increase in the taxes on something will result in 10% more revenue.
It does not work. It is wishful thinking. This is just one aspect of the problems with the CBO, but it is among the reasons the CBO is so consistently LAUGHABLY wrong.
If you want more revenues, broadly speaking, you have two REAL options:
A) Pray for another IT boom type positive black swan event
B) Motivate people to produce more wealth.If you passed as law to confiscate all the money of "wealthly" people, first, the economy would collapse overnight and second, you would find that the vast majority of that money does not exist in a physical form that CAN be confiscated. It would be catastrophic.
Junk. Games with Graphs.
Only in America can one have 'universal economic laws' when the data shows completely different results in other countries in the western world. Denmark, for example collects a good deal more of its GDP in taxes. Look up List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP and we find the shocking evidence that countries all around the world actually collect different amounts of their GDP in taxes - not some magic 19% which this 'law' contends is some sort of universal truth.
Beyond this the graph is doing a number of tricks to hide what are actually pretty big numbers. The first is by keeping the data set to an economic period when tax rates have not been hugely different. Get into World War II itself and the government gets up to close to 25% of the GDP in taxes. Here the government was taking extra ordinary means to collect and collect they did.
Prior to 1930 the percentage is way way down - the country was run on a different tax model during that period, with extremely low taxes (and few government outlays) - needless to say if the tax rate is minuscule then what the government collects is also minuscule...not 19%.
The graph also equates 'highest marginal tax rate' with the total taxes collected. Looks good on the graph because the highest marginal tax rate has changed particularly dramatically but it represents only one part of where the government gets taxes and while its a significant chunk it just so happens its also a metric perfectly chosen to make the graph look like lowering taxes has had no impact on what the government manages to collect.
All of this is damning but the real kicker is the fundamental assertion, and its exciting graph is presenting a story that implies one thing when the reality is something else altogether.
Specifically from fiscal year 1946 to fiscal year 2007, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% according to the budget of the United States Government 2009. Its perfectly possible that on average the rate was a little under 19%...but this average does not tell the whole story in the slightest. The difference between the government collecting 14.4% of the total GDP of the United States of America and the government collecting 20.9% of the total GDP of the United States of America is a freaken huge difference.
In other words Hauser's Law actually states that 'The government of the United States, since the end of World War Two, has never managed to change how much revenue it collects, as a percentage of the GDP, by more then roughly 25%...No S@~+...you change government revenues by much more then 25% only when there is a very fundamental shift in how a countries economic and tax regime work...usually this is accompanied by dramatic historical events like a revolution or wide spread epidemic plague or America winning the FIFA World Cup.
EDIT: If we can fix the economy with government jobs then the USSR should have won the cold war. I don't think it went that way.
I know I've dealt with this with you before but I'll repeat myself.
If small bureaucracy is the barometer for government efficiency then the Soviet Union should have blown the west away with its 'lean mean bureaucracy'. By the mid '80's the 37 members of the OEDC had a mean bureaucracy of about 10% of their population. The sixteen members of the Eastern Bloc had bureaucracies representing about 3.8% of their total population. In effect Reagan's America had about 2.5 bureaucrats for every bureaucrat that the Soviet Union was deploying. In fact one of the complaints one would hear from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union was, after the dismantling of the old Soviet Departments, was the rapid explosion of the much disliked bureaucracy. Even during the lean times in the 1990's Russia's bureaucracy nearly doubled in size compared to the old Soviet one and Putin's strong self confident Russia experienced very significant growth in the size of the Bureaucracy putting it in line, roughly, with his western counterparts.
There is in fact a correlation between per capita size of the bureaucracy and wealth of a state though its unclear if its just that wealthy states can afford big bureaucracies or if big bureaucracies some how promote wealthy states and there are exceptions - Japan's bureaucracy is quite small at around 4% of the population. Note however that the smaller a bureaucracy is the more rule bound it tends to be. Small bureaucracies have a very hard time being dynamic and few resources available for reviewing unusual or exceptional circumstances or even for self analysis to see if a policy is or is not working properly. Hence Japan is world famous for being a land of red tape.
This idea of a rule bound bureaucracy was a problem that the Soviet Union had in spades. Its an American cliche but one of the roles of a good bureaucrat in the west is "To speak truth to power" and this was something that simply did not, in any meaningful way, exist in the Soviet Union. The plans where developed at the top and meant to be implemented pretty much identically regardless of local conditions and there was very little that the lower echelons of the bureaucracy could do to modify these plans to fit their conditions - nor the time or manpower to come up with alternatives even if they could clearly see the problem.
Hitler was an anti-capitalist and even though he hated Marxism they (as a party) did espouse socialist ideology - instead of it being based on workers/owners of production it was based on race, same garbage.
I don't really see any evidence that Hitler was particularly anti-capitalist. He turned on the left wing of the National Socialist Party and purged it during the Night of Long Knives more or less the moment large German business interests which where finally lining up to get into bed with Hitler. Hitler was anti big business only so long as big business was anti-Hitler. It seems likely that he craved the attention and respect of powerful mean of industry and was willing to sacrifice the left wing part of his political party to get it.
I think this is a charade and it's all nonsense.
Once again, the Democrats are endangering the very things that, allegedly, they're elected to defend.
From what I've read, the proposed Obama cuts into Social Security and Medicare are HUGE--and the proposed tax increases are nothing. Meanwhile, of course, the imperialist warbeast staggers on to whatever battlefield the Commander-in-Chief or his international buddies decide is next, funds flowing freely.
The working class, the poor and the lower-stratums of "middle-class"/professionaldom have been taking it up the ass for, what? almost half a century? The buying-power of our wages has dropped and the prices of everything that you need to live and prosper has exploded. Meanwhile, we're being worked harder and for less.
And we're supposed to tighten our belts and be happy because the rich might (not if the Tea Party gets their way!) have to pay a tax on thier jets?
Meanwhile, I read over on Alex Jones's site that some kind of GAO oversight of the Fed (whatever those things are) revealed that the Fed had been secretly giving out money to all the financial firms that got tax-paid bail-outs in 2008! I think they make this "money"-s$$% up.
Just because I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean I'm not going to talk!
One thing that I dont understand is why do the spending cuts have to come from entitlement programs first? I know that they are the largest expenditures, but seriously cant we get rid of the unConstitutional departments entirely before we think about cutting SS and Medicare? I dont see an America without the ATF, DEA, DHS, TSA and with a 40% less expensive military as being all that bad.
One thing that I dont understand is why do the spending cuts have to come from entitlement programs first? I know that they are the largest expenditures, but seriously cant we get rid of the unConstitutional departments entirely before we think about cutting SS and Medicare? I dont see an America without the ATF, DEA, DHS, TSA and with a 40% less expensive military as being all that bad.I think this is a charade and it's all nonsense.
Once again, the Democrats are endangering the very things that, allegedly, they're elected to defend.
From what I've read, the proposed Obama cuts into Social Security and Medicare are HUGE--and the proposed tax increases are nothing. Meanwhile, of course, the imperialist warbeast staggers on to whatever battlefield the Commander-in-Chief or his international buddies decide is next, funds flowing freely.
The working class, the poor and the lower-stratums of "middle-class"/professionaldom have been taking it up the ass for, what? almost half a century? The buying-power of our wages has dropped and the prices of everything that you need to live and prosper has exploded. Meanwhile, we're being worked harder and for less.
And we're supposed to tighten our belts and be happy because the rich might (not if the Tea Party gets their way!) have to pay a tax on thier jets?
Meanwhile, I read over on Alex Jones's site that some kind of GAO oversight of the Fed (whatever those things are) revealed that the Fed had been secretly giving out money to all the financial firms that got tax-paid bail-outs in 2008! I think they make this "money"-s$$% up.
Just because I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean I'm not going to talk!
Because things like the TSA exists first and foremost to put money in the hands of security development corporations and secondly to control the populace.
|
|
One thing that I dont understand is why do the spending cuts have to come from entitlement programs first? I know that they are the largest expenditures, but seriously cant we get rid of the unConstitutional departments entirely before we think about cutting SS and Medicare? I dont see an America without the ATF, DEA, DHS, TSA and with a 40% less expensive military as being all that bad.
The crazy thing is that those programs are also entirely solvent. Social Security would -- if left alone -- never run out of money. The program pays for itself entirely. The only reason it is ever in danger is because Congress keeps raiding the social security piggybank to pay for other things. Like Bush borrowing gazillions from the social security trust fund to give everyone those $300 rebate checks.
And Medicare is only broken because Bush attached that horrible, insane prescription drug benefit that prohibits the government from using its position to benefit from economies of scale. Which is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There's missing the point, and then there's what Congress did with that bill, which is more like dragging the point out back, beating it to death with a tire iron, and then dousing the corpse in gasoline and tossing a match.
Medicare would never go broke if we would just freaking nationalize the healthcare system like every other rational government out there. The loonie libertarians have convinced themselves that healthcare is a commodity, not a intrinsic need, and never seem to understand that a free market healthcare system cannot work.
Rich Russians where long gone by the time Stalin really had the levers of power. It was mainly poor agricultural peasants that died under Stalin's regime.
There were people who still had personal wealth and property, many actually. Some were hoping that the incoming Germans would save them, alleviate the situation (as it was). Had they been nice to the citizens instead of executing them with their Einsatzgruppen they (3rd Reich) would have actually defeated the Soviet Union.
They weren't rich, but there were still many well off - many who had to hide their money and more who had to leave behind their accumulated wealth from their work/businesses and also their family homes, etc, just to get the hell out of the SU.
There where those that had managed to hide items of value of course and some did well, especially on the black market but the state had siezed all the means of production and had broken up all the large land holding by the time Stalin was in complete control (roughly 1929). Most that could, and where likely to be targets of the state, had already fled either east or west. China was crawling with White Russians during this period and the Germans raised several divisions of White Russian troops but these where no longer wealthy. Once the state seized the means of production is was nearly impossible to really amass wealth outside of the black market. Even those in the government did not really have much wealth - they just had access to more and better perks.
It was not the wealthy that where rising up to fight the Russians after the German invasion but specific ethnic groups, like Ukrainian for example, hoping to throw of the Russian yoke. Hence we don't see many actual Rus turn on the regime but we do see a lot of Estonians etc. do so.
I agree with you that if the Germans had instead provided the Ukrainians etc. with promises of independence and armed them, instead of trying to starve them to death to make room for hypothetical German colonists the Germans would probably have been able to at least Stale mate the Soviet Union and maybe would have been able to defeat them.
There where those that had managed to hide items of value of course and some did well, especially on the black market but the state had siezed all the means of production and had broken up all the large land holding by the time Stalin was in complete control (roughly 1929). Most that could, and where likely to be targets of the state, had already fled either east or west. China was crawling with White Russians during this period and the Germans raised several divisions of White Russian troops but these where no longer wealthy. Once the state seized the means of production is was nearly impossible to really amass wealth outside of the black market. Even those in the government did not really have much wealth - they just had access to more and better perks.
I don't want to sound insulting but I have to question your sources.
My family had money (yes, it was hidden in portable cash -jewelry, etc) an they (and many others with money) had stuck around the SU long after 1929, as a matter of fact they stuck around till the actual invasion of the SU and they ended up in occupied territory (it was in the Ukraine).They used that money (I would assess lower upper or upper middle class) to bribe Red Army Officials to get a few of my uncles out of continued service and the rest of their money (and leaving their homes behind) to get the hell out of that country.
And yeah, better perks is right - such as having retarded men accused of being Nazi spies and subsequently deported never to be seen again, or accusing people of disloyalty to the almighty Soviet State so you can take ownership of their home. Maybe less perks and more pull?
It was not the wealthy that where rising up to fight the Russians after the German invasion but specific ethnic groups, like Ukrainian for example, hoping to throw of the Russian yoke. Hence we don't see many actual Rus turn on the regime but we do see a lot of Estonians etc. do so.
I agree with you that if the Germans had instead provided the Ukrainians etc. with promises of independence and armed them, instead of trying to starve them to death to make room for hypothetical German colonists the Germans would probably have been able to at least Stale mate the Soviet Union and maybe would have been able to defeat them.
Well not just promises but actually not burning people alive in their homes would have helped. I do believe that the Russians would have turned on their commie masters but for all the horror stories from the advancing front and free propaganda provide by those atrocities. Hitler was right about the "kick the door" comment, that is if they were only attacking the Communist infrastructure, but they didn't leave it at that - they wanted to get at the millions of Jews living in the SU and they let the dog off the leash. If they engaged in nation building/restoration instead of scorched earth tactics the SU would have collapsed on itself.
I don't really see any evidence that Hitler was particularly anti-capitalist. He turned on the left wing of the National Socialist Party and purged it during the Night of Long Knives more or less the moment large German business interests which where finally lining up to get into bed with Hitler. Hitler was anti big business only so long as big business was anti-Hitler. It seems likely that he craved the attention and respect of powerful mean of industry and was willing to sacrifice the left wing part of his political party to get it.
Didn't get a chance to respond to this earlier but I wanted to comment. Hitler was staunchly anti-capitalist, primarily because much like Communism he saw this as another tool of control from Jews. Did he use big industry to fund and supply his war machine, yeah - but he merely tolerated them as a necessary evil and means to an end (just like he did Christianity). And those companies did NOT get to choose what they produced - they produced for the State and for the war or their assets were seized. Not exactly freedom to produce what you want or even close free market capitalism. He utilized aspects of socialism and state control far more than any western notion of Capitalism or free-market thinking.
Too bad you deleted your earlier post about the Night of the Long Knives purge, some interesting views (didn't wholly agree) but it had some good observations about the "leftist" purges within the SA/SS and party.
Anyway, sorry for the derail, I'll let everyone get back to discussing how brilliant Bill Maher is with his college level of political discourse and easy insights into the debt ceiling problem.
Just a note -- the SU itself praticed a scorched earth policy as well -- and were noted for trying to turn anything into a weapon (even dogs and in a few cases *of which I am not certain of the validity* children) which has the habit of making your enemy very paranoid and prone to committing atrocities in the hopes of preventing an attack (which did help the SU with free propaganda). It's similar to some of the stuff our soldiers saw in Vietnam -- and some of their responses were just as predictably bad (though by no means all of them were such, or anything like that).
*Sidenote to the main topic* easy insights are just that -- easy... however as it's been put before "it's the economy stupid" -- which is to say, "it's the math" and the math says if you aren't bring enough in you find more sources of income, since there is only so much 'fat' to cut (and honestly you can't live without some fat).
One thing that I dont understand is why do the spending cuts have to come from entitlement programs first? I know that they are the largest expenditures, but seriously cant we get rid of the unConstitutional departments entirely before we think about cutting SS and Medicare? I dont see an America without the ATF, DEA, DHS, TSA and with a 40% less expensive military as being all that bad.The crazy thing is that those programs are also entirely solvent. Social Security would -- if left alone -- never run out of money. The program pays for itself entirely. The only reason it is ever in danger is because Congress keeps raiding the social security piggybank to pay for other things. Like Bush borrowing gazillions from the social security trust fund to give everyone those $300 rebate checks.
And Medicare is only broken because Bush attached that horrible, insane prescription drug benefit that prohibits the government from using its position to benefit from economies of scale. Which is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There's missing the point, and then there's what Congress did with that bill, which is more like dragging the point out back, beating it to death with a tire iron, and then dousing the corpse in gasoline and tossing a match.
Medicare would never go broke if we would just freaking nationalize the healthcare system like every other rational government out there. The loonie libertarians have convinced themselves that healthcare is a commodity, not a intrinsic need, and never seem to understand that a free market healthcare system cannot work.
What we Loonie Libertarians understand is that (as you admit) Government screwed Social Security and Medicare. We have not much hope for Government controlled healthcare. I do agree that full on nationalization of health care would be preferable to the mish mash that is the so-called ObamaCare (especially with the horrible "mandate" precedent).
Edit- I think that this is where I disagree with you most. Big Government could be great if our leaders always looked out for the People's interests. Even if, by some miracle, we got those great leaders and gave them an all-powerful government to lead us to a great and better tomorrow, there is no guarantee that the next leader is going to have our best interests at heart. Remember that W. promised to us in 2000 that he would make the US military "more humble with a reduced presence in the world" and that we "would no longer be involved in nation-building". How'd that work out?
|
|
What we Loonie Libertarians understand is that (as you admit) Government screwed Social Security and Medicare. We have not much hope for Government controlled healthcare. I do agree that full on nationalization of health care would be preferable to the mish mash that is the so-called ObamaCare (especially with the horrible "mandate" precedent).
No, Republicans with their looney libertarian idea screwed social security and medicare. Not government, Republicans. Democrats have been suggesting a social security lockbox law since Reagan. Al Gore ran on the idea.
The problem with many Republicans, especially the libertarian subset of Republicans, is that they don't believe government programs work. So when you elect them, the first they do is break the government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Edit- I think that this is where I disagree with you most. Big Government could be great if our leaders always looked out for the People's interests. Even if, by some miracle, we got those great leaders and gave them an all-powerful government to lead us to a great and better tomorrow, there is no guarantee that the next leader is going to have our best interests at heart. Remember that W. promised to us in 2000 that he would make the US military "more humble with a reduced presence in the world" and that we "would no longer be involved in nation-building". How'd that work out?
I knew George Bush was going to start a war in Iraq, run up a massive deficit, and crash the economy in November of 2000. I knew everything George Bush said in that whole campaign was a lie.
Why didn't you?
No, Republicans with their looney libertarian idea screwed social security and medicare. Not government, Republicans. Democrats have been suggesting a social security lockbox law since Reagan. Al Gore ran on the idea.
The problem with many Republicans, especially the libertarian subset of Republicans, is that they don't believe government programs work. So when you elect them, the first they do is break the government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
First, I think that you are confusing Libertarians with Republicans. No Libertarian would ever vote to end civil rights or get us engaged in so many foreign wars. Second, Oh my bad, I thought that Republicans were part of Government. So the answer is give all the power to one party and hope that they always have our best interests at heart. Uh-huh. Thats never turned out poorly in the past.
I knew George Bush was going to start a war in Iraq, run up a massive deficit, and crash the economy in November of 2000. I knew everything George Bush said in that whole campaign was a lie.Why didn't you?
Who said I voted for him? Did you also, in your omniscience, also know that President Obama was going to run up an even more massive deficit, continue the Patriot Act, not close Guantanamo, Get us involved in two more wars in the Middle East, still torture "terrorists", still erode our civil rights, and not end the war in Afghanistan within 90 days?? I did (just like I knew George Bush was lying too).
Why didn't you?
I don't think its the Libertarians who are loony, I think it is you and the others who still think that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats or believe that either one cares about your best interests.
|
|
First, I think that you are confusing Libertarians with Republicans. No Libertarian would ever vote to end civil rights or get us engaged in so many foreign wars.
For the most part, there is no meaningful difference. Republicans invariably use libertarian arguments to support their positions, and most self-identified libertarians vote Republican.
Since the Libertarian Party has zero political power, but libertarians in general have powerful influence on Republican ideology, I generally consider them one and the same.
Second, Oh my bad, I thought that Republicans were part of Government. So the answer is give all the power to one party and hope that always have our best interests at heart.
Democratic majorities controlled the House and Senate through the forty best years this country has ever seen. We've been a continual downslide ever since conservatism became the dominant ideology. Maybe that's not a coincidence?
Who said I voted for him?
I knew George Bush was going to start a war in Iraq, run up a massive deficit, and crash the economy in November of 2000. I knew everything George Bush said in that whole campaign was a lie.Why didn't you?
Nobody. But you seemed surprised that his actions didn't match his rhetoric. Of course they didn't. He was an idiot puppet mouthpiece for the corporate establishment.
Did you also, in your omniscience, also know that President Obama was going to run up an even more massive deficit,
Once the recession hit, it was inevitable.
...continue the Patriot Act,
Of course. Most of the Patriot Act is sound legislation that we need.
...not close Guantanamo,
He did close Guantanamo. It was the very first executive order he signed. Congress has denied him any funds to move the prisoners. Rule of law, sometimes its a b#%!*.
...Get us involved in two more wars in the Middle East,
I did not see the Jasmine Revolution coming, but I do support our actions in Libya. What's the other war?
...still torture "terrorists",
Citation? All torture programs were suspended under Bush.
...still erode our civil rights,
Citation?
...and not end the war in Afghanistan within 90 days??
Obama never said he would end the war in Afghanistan in 90 days. Here is what he did say.
I don't think its the Libertarians who are loony, I think it is you and the others who still think that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats or believe that either one cares about your best interests.
...so vote Republican. (sorry, Fark.com joke)
I don't want to sound insulting but I have to question your sources.
My family had money (yes, it was hidden in portable cash -jewelry, etc) an they (and many others with money) had stuck around the SU long after 1929, as a matter of fact they stuck around till the actual invasion of the SU and they ended up in occupied territory (it was in the Ukraine).They used that money (I would assess lower upper or upper middle class) to bribe Red Army Officials to get a few of my uncles out of continued service and the rest of their money (and leaving their homes behind) to get the hell out of that country.
Even some good money stashed in potables like jewellery does not really make one rich in this system. You note it allows for a couple of sizable bribes and enough to flee the state. In any case I think the whole thing is a bit of a side issue. My point was that Stalin's Russia did what it did (which was pretty impressive in terms of industrial build up) on top of the graves of millions of peasants whatever remained of the wealthy class that had stayed out of the civil war where little more then a small trickle of people moving around the shadows of the state.
Didn't get a chance to respond to this earlier but I wanted to comment. Hitler was staunchly anti-capitalist, primarily because much like Communism he saw this as another tool of control from Jews. Did he use big industry to fund and supply his war machine, yeah - but he merely tolerated them as a necessary evil and means to an end (just like he did Christianity). And those companies did NOT get to choose what they produced - they produced for the State and for the war or their assets were seized. Not exactly freedom to produce what you want or even close free market capitalism. He utilized aspects of socialism and state control far more than any western notion of Capitalism or free-market thinking.
The Reich never got down to nearly the same kind of total over haul of the economy as Russia. Certainly there where groups that where dispossessed of their wealth and once the war got underway that had a big impact on the economy but even Goering's Total War speech after Stalingrad mainly just shut down jewellery shops and night clubs. Which tells us that such things continued on well into the Reich. Even up to this point the Germans where pretty lousy at really putting their country on a total war footing. Germany never managed to bring women into the work force to replace men to even the level Britain pulled off. Large chunks of the German economy more or less kept doing what it had been doing before Hitlers rise to power even afterword simply because the state never made them change what they where doing. Even when there where changes it was often little more then changing names. SO the railways became part of the Riech's Ministry of Transport but the people who worked in them more or less stayed the same and what they did pretty much kept on as normal. Sure there where some big changes in regards to the large firms but this was usually a case of the German government offering really lucrative contracts for massive orders and the various companies lining up to take advantage of these contracts. In essence the Germans achieved full employment through what amounted to massive amounts of government stimulus spending.
Too bad you deleted your earlier post about the Night of the Long Knives purge, some interesting views (didn't wholly agree) but it had some good observations about the "leftist" purges within the SA/SS and party.
I did not delete anything. I can't even. I can edit a post for one hour and then I can't do anything with it after that point.
Just a note -- the SU itself praticed a scorched earth policy as well -- and were noted for trying to turn anything into a weapon (even dogs and in a few cases *of which I am not certain of the validity* children) which has the habit of making your enemy very paranoid and prone to committing atrocities in the hopes of preventing an attack (which did help the SU with free propaganda). It's similar to some of the stuff our soldiers saw in Vietnam -- and some of their responses were just as predictably bad (though by no means all of them were such, or anything like that).
This does not even really go anywhere near to what the Germans where up to. The German's where engaged in full scale race war. Everyone in Eastern Russia was to be killed or enslaved to make way for resettlement of the region by Germans. They'd take a major city they had captured and was now fairly far behind the lines and literally stop all shipments of anything into or out of the city. Needless to say cities are not self sufficient in food so the people would start to starve. The Germans where actively trying to kill off the population to depopulate their conquests. Needless to say a little bit Germany's kind treatment and the normally anti-Russian Ukrainians suddenly became ardent Russian patriots.