Conservatives and Liberals

[a fan]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

[youthathletics]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

Sure it is....who would be 'giving' said business the break?....exactly correct, the gov't.

[tech37]

Too bad he says "Trumpian"... how does that help? (and just a couple paragraphs earlier he writes "who they think look down on them" ) How about just say "resentment" Mr. Brooks.[/color][/b]

It doesn't. But he's frustrated------most liberals are. This should be understandable, tech.

It's not on the libs to get these flyover voters to wake the F up, and understand that the last several Presidents screwed them, and sent even more money to the coastal elites they despise. And their party is leading that charge....followed by the corporate Dems.

It's up to these voters to fix it-----they have to take responsibility for what they're voting for.... And with each passing year, their votes put them further behind. Is it not understandable that those of us who want these people to have a good life are sick of watching them vote against their own economic interests?

But we can't vote for them. If they don't like the condescending attitude? The should stop mocking libs, and stop with their own condescension, for starters.

And they should stop and think about how they are going to get jobs for their kids.

I've told OS many, many time.s.....these people should be die-hard Bernie fans....they're not. Why?

It's not just political or socioeconomical but cultural, deeply ingrained. I think Brook's opinion here rings true:

Over the past few decades there has been a redistribution of dignity — upward. From Reagan through Romney, the Republicans valorized entrepreneurs, C.E.O.s and Wall Street. The Democratic Party became dominated by the creative class, who attended competitive colleges, moved to affluent metro areas, married each other and ladled advantages onto their kids so they could leap even further ahead.

There was a bipartisan embrace of a culture of individualism, which opens up a lot of space for people with resources and social support, but means loneliness and abandonment for people without. Four years of college became the definition of the good life, which left roughly two-thirds of the country out.

[a fan]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

Sure it is....who would be 'giving' said business the break?....exactly correct, the gov't.

Socialism is when the government owns and manages the entity in question. Tax breaks are simply tax breaks.

Amazon is managed by Andy Jassy. Not the State of NY. Therefore, it's not an example of socialism.

[youthathletics]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

Sure it is....who would be 'giving' said business the break?....exactly correct, the gov't.

Socialism is when the government owns and manages the entity in question. Tax breaks are simply tax breaks.

Amazon is managed by Andy Jassy. Not the State of NY. Therefore, it's not an example of socialism.

Now you are confusing us all, or at least me. Are you now saying UVA (or any state U) is not socialism as you have prescribed so many times?

[a fan]

It's not just political or socioeconomical but cultural, deeply ingrained. I think Brook's opinion here rings true:

Over the past few decades there has been a redistribution of dignity — upward. From Reagan through Romney, the Republicans valorized entrepreneurs, C.E.O.s and Wall Street. The Democratic Party became dominated by the creative class, who attended competitive colleges, moved to affluent metro areas, married each other and ladled advantages onto their kids so they could leap even further ahead.

There was a bipartisan embrace of a culture of individualism, which opens up a lot of space for people with resources and social support, but means loneliness and abandonment for people without. Four years of college became the definition of the good life, which left roughly two-thirds of the country out.

Yes. By choice. They CHOSE to be left out. That's my point.

Vote for Bernie. The government will pay for your college/training with minimal, if any fees. just like every other 1st world nation.

What do these voters do instead? They vote for people who keep moving college and/or vocational training into the realm of the impossible.

At some point-----at SOME point-----these flyover voters are going to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a free market to get them "the good life", as Brook's put it.

I was a libertarian for all of about ten minutes....until I realized that I couldn't answer this question:


Put a 10 year old kid in rural Colorado, 200 miles from any major city. Tell me how you employ his parents, give him 1st world health care, and educate this kid to the point where he can enter the workforce without socialism or government handouts.[/quote]


You can't. It's impossible. The free market can't find enough money for roads out there. Or a hospital----not enough patients with money to keep the doors open. Or the internet. Or, or, or..... And there's also not enough money for a good education......so you have to take money from large cities, and give it to these areas on way (State schools) or another (handouts).

This, btw, is the ENTIRE reason we have Counties in every State in America-----to pool resources for basic government services and handouts.


The culture of individualism----no help or protection from the Federal Government----- says that Americans must compete with Mexico, for example, for wages. This individualism , and lack of government, comes at a steep price------low skill jobs in Mexico are at $250 per month.

There is so very much that these voters don't want to hear when it comes to their value as laborers. One of them that I hear all the time is "we need US farmers for food". No. We don't.

Did you know that more than half of our fresh fruit is imported? Whoops. There's that free market, telling US farmers that no, we don't need you.

I could go on, but you get the point. Flyover Americans should be socialists....and because we they haven't changed with the times, along with every other 1st world nation? They keep falling further behind----while the top 20% earners keep surging ahead.

At some point-----at SOME point----these big city libs are going to get fed up, and decide to let these voters drown themselves. Strict laws on Abortion, for example, is pushing that attitude forward in a big way....

[a fan]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

Sure it is....who would be 'giving' said business the break?....exactly correct, the gov't.

Socialism is when the government owns and manages the entity in question. Tax breaks are simply tax breaks.

Amazon is managed by Andy Jassy. Not the State of NY. Therefore, it's not an example of socialism.

Now you are confusing us all, or at least me. Are you now saying UVA (or any state U) is not socialism as you have prescribed so many times?

I've used the same, exact, specific, dictionary definition since I was in college.

Owned and Operated by the government. That's it. Simple as all get out.

If it's owned and operated by the government....as UVa is? That's socialism.

If it's owned, but NOT operated by the government, that's NOT socialism

If it's NOT owned, yet operated by the government, that's NOT socialism.

Cut and dry. Simple as hell.

[youthathletics]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

Sure it is....who would be 'giving' said business the break?....exactly correct, the gov't.

Socialism is when the government owns and manages the entity in question. Tax breaks are simply tax breaks.

Amazon is managed by Andy Jassy. Not the State of NY. Therefore, it's not an example of socialism.

Now you are confusing us all, or at least me. Are you now saying UVA (or any state U) is not socialism as you have prescribed so many times?

I've used the same, exact, specific, dictionary definition since I was in college.

Owned and Operated by the government. That's it. Simple as all get out.

If it's owned and operated by the government....as UVa is? That's socialism.

If it's owned, but NOT operated by the government, that's NOT socialism

If it's NOT owned, yet operated by the government, that's NOT socialism.

Cut and dry. Simple as hell.

Only 6% stake from the state.....so maybe they are now a bad example.
Due to a continual decline in state funding for the university, today only 6 percent of its budget comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia.[49] A Charter initiative was signed into law by then-Governor Mark Warner in 2005, negotiated with the university to have greater autonomy over its own affairs in exchange for accepting this decline in financial support.

[a fan]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

Sure it is....who would be 'giving' said business the break?....exactly correct, the gov't.

Socialism is when the government owns and manages the entity in question. Tax breaks are simply tax breaks.

Amazon is managed by Andy Jassy. Not the State of NY. Therefore, it's not an example of socialism.

Now you are confusing us all, or at least me. Are you now saying UVA (or any state U) is not socialism as you have prescribed so many times?

I've used the same, exact, specific, dictionary definition since I was in college.

Owned and Operated by the government. That's it. Simple as all get out.

If it's owned and operated by the government....as UVa is? That's socialism.

If it's owned, but NOT operated by the government, that's NOT socialism

If it's NOT owned, yet operated by the government, that's NOT socialism.

Cut and dry. Simple as hell.

Only 6% stake from the state.....so maybe they are now a bad example.
Due to a continual decline in state funding for the university, today only 6 percent of its budget comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia.[49] A Charter initiative was signed into law by then-Governor Mark Warner in 2005, negotiated with the university to have greater autonomy over its own affairs in exchange for accepting this decline in financial support.

? Where they get their funding is 1000% immaterial to the definition.

Who OWNS and MANAGES UVa? The State of Virginia, and the State of Virginia. An ironclad example of socialism.

Who do you think Lockheed Martin's biggest customer is? Or any US pharmaceutical? That's right---the US government.

It doesn't matter where they get their checks/funding from, my man. All that matters is who owns and operates Lockheed.

[CU88]

October 1, 2021
Heather Cox Richardson
Oct 2

For those of you exhausted by this week’s news, you can take a break tonight. Lots of moving pieces are in play, but nothing that would hold a historian to her desk a hundred years from now, so skip this letter with a clean conscience.

For those of you who do want some reflections, I am struck today by the media’s breathless recounting of how the ongoing negotiations over the two infrastructure bills shows that the Democrats are in disarray and President Joe Biden’s agenda is crashing and burning. The New York Times called a delay in the vote on the measures “a humiliating blow to Mr. Biden and Democrats” and wondered if “Biden’s economic agenda could be revived.”

Exactly a year ago, the news reported that Trump adviser Hope Hicks had coronavirus and that she had recently traveled with White House personnel on Air Force One. The stock market dropped 400 points on the news. The previous day had been the infamous presidential debate when Trump yelled and snarled at Biden, while his entourage, including Hicks, refused to wear masks despite a mandate that they must do so. We did not know who else might be infected.

Hours later, we learned that the president and First Lady were both sick, and within hours the president would be hospitalized.

The rest of the news provided a snapshot of the Trump presidency:

•A study of more than 38 million English-language articles about the pandemic between January 1 and May 26 showed that Trump was “likely the largest driver of…Covid-19 misinformation.”

•Trump’s former national security adviser, retired Lt. General H.R. McMaster, told MSNBC that Trump was “aiding and abetting Putin’s efforts” to disrupt the November election.

•We learned that Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, had not disclosed that in 2006, she signed an anti-abortion ad in the South Bend Tribune. It appeared near another ad from the same organization that called for putting “an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children.”

•A tape leaked of Melania Trump complaining about having to decorate the White House for Christmas—“I’m working… my a** off on the Christmas stuff, that you know, who gives a f*** about the Christmas stuff and decorations?”—and then said of criticism that she was not involved with the children separated from their parents at the southern border: “Give me a f****** break.”

•News broke that Donald Trump, Jr.’s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, had left the Fox News Channel after an employee complained of sexual harassment, saying she required the employee to work at her apartment, where she would sometimes be naked, and where she would share inappropriate photos of men and discuss her sexual activities with them. She denied any misconduct, but FNC settled the case against her for $4 million.

•The House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, passed a $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief measure. No Republicans voted for it.

•Right-wing conspiracy theorists Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman were charged with four felonies in Michigan for intimidating voters, conspiring to violate election laws, and using a computer to commit a crime.

•Claiming he wanted to prevent “voter fraud,” Republican governor Greg Abbott of Texas limited the number of locations for dropping off mail-in ballots to one site per county. While Republican counties tended to have just one location already, Democratic Harris County, the third largest county in the country, with a population of more than 4.7 million and an area larger than the state of Rhode Island, had previously used 12. Democratic Travis County, which includes Austin, previously had four.

That was one single day in the Trump presidency.

In contrast, today, the Democrats are trying to pass an extremely complicated package, consisting of two major infrastructure bills, backed by different constituencies, that will alter the direction of our country by investing in ordinary Americans and revising the tax code to claw back some of the 2017 tax cuts the Republican Congress gave to corporations and the very wealthy. Although there is no guarantee they will pass, the bills are currently still on track, and all the relevant parties are still at work discussing them, exactly as one would expect.

What is the unusual piece in this process is that the other major American political party—the Republicans—is refusing to participate in the crafting of a major bill that is extremely popular.

This infrastructure package is huge, but it is hardly the only item in Biden’s agenda. In March 2021, the Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion economic rescue package that has helped the administration produce more jobs in its first six months than any other administration in American history.

Not a single Republican voted for that bill; it passed while they were focusing on the ungendered Potato Head kin and the decision of the Dr. Seuss estate to stop the publication of some of Theodor Geisel’s less popular books.

The economy has recovered in large part because of the Biden administration’s enormous success at distributing the coronavirus vaccines to every American who wanted one.

Republican lawmakers have worked against this process, and today we crossed the unthinkable line of 700,000 officially counted deaths from Covid-19.

Now, the administration has begun to put vaccine mandates into effect, and they are working. Those who insisted they would never get vaccines changed their minds when employers and public venues required them. Today, California governor Gavin Newsom announced that the state will require coronavirus vaccines for school children, along with the ten others it already requires, as soon as the Food and Drug Administration fully approves them for use in children.

Meanwhile, Republican-dominated state legislatures are following through on the voter suppression noted a year ago, passing measures to cut down Democratic voting and install Republican operatives in key election posts before the 2022 election.

As political scientist and foreign relations expert David Rothkopf tweeted: “Are the Dems the ones in disarray when they are crafting specific programs while the GOP offers up only cynical Tweets & obstruction? The only GOP agenda items are voter suppression, defending the worst president in history & when they have power, pushing tax cuts for the rich.”

For my part, I’m not sure what is driving the stories that seem to paint Biden’s work as a lost cause: The recent position that Democrats are hapless? That it’s safer to be negative than positive? That our news cycle demands drama?

Whatever it is, I continue to maintain that the issue right now is not Democrats’ negotiations over the infrastructure bills—regardless of how they turn out—but that Republican lawmakers are actively working to undermine our democracy.

[youthathletics]

The naivete of Heather et al. is astounding. If you sit back and really think about it, avoiding simple minded blaming....Trump did more for the democratic party than they could do on their own. Trump handed them damned near everything they asked for...then played a big game acting like he was in control. Sadly, in the end, what it revealed was a tipping point, one that needed a reset button....coincidentally CV19 punched us all in throat.

So here we are....d's in full control, the pencil is mightier than the sword, and notta damned thing has been accomplished....other than we are all still recovering from that punch in the throat and we have pissed off our allies even more. And oh yea.....a spending package like no other, that they again, want to pass before it can be read, all 2700 pages of it. Hell....that is more than 2x the pages in the bible, maybe they should all read that first .

In the end, we will still have our family and friends, and this forum so we have a place to bitcch and moan.

[a fan]

So here we are....d's in full control, the pencil is mightier than the sword, and notta damned thing has been accomplished....other than we are all still recovering from that punch in the throat and we have ticked off our allies even more. And oh yea.....a spending package like no other, that they again, want to pass before it can be read, all 2700 pages of it. Hell....that is more than 2x the pages in the bible, maybe they should all read that first

Naaah, this is different. This bill ACTUALLY has real stuff in it (or at least it did....we'll see what the final bill is). And while I believe it should be twice as big as it is, it has all kinds of good things in it, including mind-numbingly simple big boy budgets for things like forest management. We literally don't manage Federal lands anymore----blow every penny of the budget putting fires out, instead of spending far, far less doing controlled burns and the like.

We'll see when it comes to this bill. But even the most ardent libertarian believes in infrastructure...and this bill is decades late.

[Farfromgeneva]

I thought you embraced socialism in a capitalism america?

That's not socialism, my man.

Sure it is....who would be 'giving' said business the break?....exactly correct, the gov't.

Socialism is when the government owns and manages the entity in question. Tax breaks are simply tax breaks.

Amazon is managed by Andy Jassy. Not the State of NY. Therefore, it's not an example of socialism.

Now you are confusing us all, or at least me. Are you now saying UVA (or any state U) is not socialism as you have prescribed so many times?

I've used the same, exact, specific, dictionary definition since I was in college.

Owned and Operated by the government. That's it. Simple as all get out.

If it's owned and operated by the government....as UVa is? That's socialism.

If it's owned, but NOT operated by the government, that's NOT socialism

If it's NOT owned, yet operated by the government, that's NOT socialism.

Cut and dry. Simple as hell.

Only 6% stake from the state.....so maybe they are now a bad example.
Due to a continual decline in state funding for the university, today only 6 percent of its budget comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia.[49] A Charter initiative was signed into law by then-Governor Mark Warner in 2005, negotiated with the university to have greater autonomy over its own affairs in exchange for accepting this decline in financial support.

? Where they get their funding is 1000% immaterial to the definition.

Who OWNS and MANAGES UVa? The State of Virginia, and the State of Virginia. An ironclad example of socialism.

Who do you think Lockheed Martin's biggest customer is? Or any US pharmaceutical? That's right---the US government.

It doesn't matter where they get their checks/funding from, my man. All that matters is who owns and operates Lockheed.

You waived off any definition of ownership before but there’s a million ways to own something. He’s just one description, and I deal with stretch equity, liquidation preference and a million other structures. Is it share of cash flow, operational control (GP vs LP, who is the managing member, control rights, etc).

I had a gig for about a year before grad school as a research analyst for an advisory firm & merchant bank to LDC/3rd world countries (owned by a few ex world bank professionals) and as part of refinancing aid loans the world bank was requiring these countries to privatize government (unambiguously) owned industries (agribusiness in Algeria, Telecom in Rwanda, etc) and studied all sorts of delivery of equity to the citizens or other ways to privatize. I know you’ll never agree even if I throw a million real world differential examples as well as world class experts on these matters at you but there’s a much more complex group of concepts that aggregate your ideas like ownership or equity, let alone socio economic forma of organization of societies but I like banging my head against a wall I guess so check this quick pull I did below on equity and ownership.

Ownership Structures
Three different types of social enterprise ownership structures exist: private, public and collective. Ownership can be either a driver for a social enterprise's legal structure or a determinate of it. In most counties nonprofits are considered "public good" or property of the public, thus calling into question the legal ownership of their assets, goodwill, brand, etc.

Public ownership may be practiced in the form of decision-making and participation as long as the organization is a going concern. Similar to traditional nonprofits, a public ownership structure indicates that governing board of directors directs strategy and financial oversight. Legally, nonprofit ownership becomes an issue if the owner(s) wants to sell the social enterprise, or close it and liquidates the assets.

Private ownershipof a social enterprise offers benefits of equity financing, unambiguous asset ownership and valuation, and the freedom to sell the enterprise. Conflict can arise between fundamental motives of profit-making and mission. For-profits must minimally breakeven and often have tax liabilities, limiting the type and purpose of the enterprise to more productive and financially driven models than those that may serve a social need, yet run at a deficit.

Public

Nonprofit Organizations -- the classic nonprofit organization is considered "public good," or property of the public. Nonprofits may own a for-profit or nonprofit social enterprise subsidiary. In the case of the for-profit, the nonprofit may sell the subsidiary or its assets, or raise equity for new investments; whereas the nonprofit subsidiary may raise charitable funds, but not equity and is subject to donor requirements and nonprofit law regarding ownership of assets and use of revenue. The nonprofit parent of the nonprofit subsidiary may acquire the assets of the social enterprise if the business fails or is closed.

Public Shareholders -- a consortium of nonprofit stakeholders that "hold shares" in a social enterprise (nonprofit or for-profit). Often the shareholders are comprised of parent organizations, partners and donors that have an existing program or financial stake in the social enterprise. Legal issues are similar for other public entities under this ownership structure. The public shareholder model is frequently used as an exit strategy when a parent organization seeks to spin off a social enterprise into an autonomous legal entity, yet wants to maintain some decision making power and preserve the mission during the transitional period to independence.

Cooperative

Nonprofit cooperatives are a common form of social enterprise particularly in developing countries. Driven by their social mission, most nonprofit cooperatives have a legal incorporation similar to other types of nonprofits, and are thus entitled to similar benefits as well as limited by similar restrictions as nonprofits. In practice, owners are "members" of the nonprofit cooperative and though they may have programmatic and business decision-making authority and realize certain advantages, they do not actually own the brand, infrastructure, assets, methodology, programs, revenue, etc. and do not enjoy private property ownership rights. The nonprofit cooperative requires oversight by a board of directors. The target population is the nonprofit cooperative’s membership; members realize social benefits, but do not receive income distributed from business activities.

For-profit cooperatives -- "cooperatively" or group owned social enterprise registered as a for-profit is age-old structure in both developing and industrialized countries. These cooperatives are profit-driven structures whose social contribution is aimed at improving economic conditions of a particular group, such as farmer or artisan cooperative. Often for-profit cooperatives (such as Equal Exchange, our example of Embedded Social Enterprise) are worker owned. Owners may also be called members and exercise legal rights and decision-making authority tied to property ownership: to sell, dissolve, liquidate the business and its assets, or expand the business and use revenue as they see fit. Owners may elect distribute profits to themselves or retain earning to reinvest in their business.

Private

Sole proprietorship -- in several emerging-market countries social enterprises are owned by a single individual to bypass laws restricting nonprofit commercial activity. In this situation the social enterprise owner is often the parent organization's executive director or a member of its board of directors. This structure introduces a risk of the business being cannibalized by an unscrupulous owner. Unfortunately in many countries, until the legal environment becomes more enabling, this is the only ownership option available. These entities though created to support a nonprofit are subject to local taxes and laws governing private businesses.

Private Shareholders -- in developing countries, the financial service industry is the leading example of shareholders and investor ownership of social enterprises (microfinance institutions, community or rural banks, credit unions, etc). Microfinance organizations that successfully commercialize their services and transform into for-profit financial institutions may sell shares to individuals, the government, other nonprofit organizations and donors to raise equity. Public sector owners are not required to be stakeholders in the parent organization or social enterprise other than as a social investor. Ownership shares may also be distributed to the target population as part of the social model. For example, when the Grameen Bank project transformed into an independent bank, it distributed 90% of its ownership to the poor rural borrowers its serves, while the remaining 10% was purchased by the government.

Benevolent Owners -- private ownership of social enterprises generally falls under the rubric of socially responsible business. In industrialized countries there are a growing number of small businesses created for the purpose of contributing to a social cause and generating revenue for their owners. In the United States, practitioners have formed their own industry organization: Social Venture Network. These businesses operate in accordance to standard laws for small business. For more information, see also the Business for Social Responsibility web site.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok the Cox story, the important question is, Hope Hicks comes to you and says she’s got Covid but “needs it from you bad, daddy”. What do you do?

I know my answer but frankly I’m trying to barbell my life more rather than live in the averages these days….

[a fan]

You waived off any definition of ownership before but there’s a million ways to own something.

Not waiving it off at all...and what YouthA was saying was that UVa doesn't receive much funding from State coffers here in 2021. So what? Who owns the University of Virginia? The State of Virginia, no? So: the government. The definition holds.

As for ownership.....there is nothing keeping governments both here and abroad from investing in, say, Google.

Does that mean Google is socialist? I'd venture to guess, you'd say no. Why? Because Google is managed by private hands....the .gov isn't running it.

[Farfromgeneva]

You waived off any definition of ownership before but there’s a million ways to own something.

Not waiving it off at all...and what YouthA was saying was that UVa doesn't receive much funding from State coffers here in 2021. So what? Who owns the University of Virginia? The State of Virginia, no? So: the government. The definition holds.

As for ownership.....there is nothing keeping governments both here and abroad from investing in, say, Google.

Does that mean Google is socialist? I'd venture to guess, you'd say no. Why? Because Google is managed by private hands....the .gov isn't running it.

Who’s in control of a company or investment vehicle, the agents or the equity owners? The Managing member GP or the LP that owns 95%?

Is GIC or Apollo the owner of some major investment CRE asset?

Is Saudi Arabia, who’s by far the biggest investor in SoftBank in control of WeWork or any SoftBank investments?

What about the GSEs? Fannie, Freddie. Very different than VA/HUD. What about OPIC? Or the Federal Home Loan Banks?

It’s a well known fact that the govt of Cali has elected to keep PG&E afloat when it could've (maybe should’ve) been deemed insolvent like 12x over the pst 30yrs but it’s got private stock and yet is a play toy for the policies to be directed that the politicians want.

What about the Chicago Skyway or Dulles Toll Road?

https://ijglobal.com/articles/99720/chi ... isition-us

https://www.atlasarteria.com/stores/_sh ... 04.pdf?v=6

[Brooklyn]

https://image.politicalcartoons.com/255 ... orance.png



life in politically correct {sic} right wing America

[a fan]

You waived off any definition of ownership before but there’s a million ways to own something.

Not waiving it off at all...and what YouthA was saying was that UVa doesn't receive much funding from State coffers here in 2021. So what? Who owns the University of Virginia? The State of Virginia, no? So: the government. The definition holds.

As for ownership.....there is nothing keeping governments both here and abroad from investing in, say, Google.

Does that mean Google is socialist? I'd venture to guess, you'd say no. Why? Because Google is managed by private hands....the .gov isn't running it.

Who’s in control of a company or investment vehicle, the agents or the equity owners? The Managing member GP or the LP that owns 95%?

Is GIC or Apollo the owner of some major investment CRE asset?

Is Saudi Arabia, who’s by far the biggest investor in SoftBank in control of WeWork or any SoftBank investments?

What about the GSEs? Fannie, Freddie. Very different than VA/HUD. What about OPIC? Or the Federal Home Loan Banks?

It’s a well known fact that the govt of Cali has elected to keep PG&E afloat when it could've (maybe should’ve) been deemed insolvent like 12x over the pst 30yrs but it’s got private stock and yet is a play toy for the policies to be directed that the politicians want.

What about the Chicago Skyway or Dulles Toll Road?

https://ijglobal.com/articles/99720/chi ... isition-us

https://www.atlasarteria.com/stores/_sh ... 04.pdf?v=6

For the above, the answer is: if the government owns AND manages any of those entities listed? That's socialism.

So for the above---which of the CEO's is collecting a Government paycheck...which government, and what's their title within said government?

If you can't give me a name and title? That's not socialism.

It's a simple definition. What you're talking about are things like handouts, bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. None of which have anything to do with socialism.

Dulles Toll Road has been discussed before. Dulles Greenway section is a private road----owned by a private corporation. So that's NOT socialism currently. It was SUPPOSED to move to management by the State of VA in 2036. But it would still be privately owned....again, NOT socialism.

[PizzaSnake]

You waived off any definition of ownership before but there’s a million ways to own something.

Not waiving it off at all...and what YouthA was saying was that UVa doesn't receive much funding from State coffers here in 2021. So what? Who owns the University of Virginia? The State of Virginia, no? So: the government. The definition holds.

As for ownership.....there is nothing keeping governments both here and abroad from investing in, say, Google.

Does that mean Google is socialist? I'd venture to guess, you'd say no. Why? Because Google is managed by private hands....the .gov isn't running it.

Who’s in control of a company or investment vehicle, the agents or the equity owners? The Managing member GP or the LP that owns 95%?

Is GIC or Apollo the owner of some major investment CRE asset?

Is Saudi Arabia, who’s by far the biggest investor in SoftBank in control of WeWork or any SoftBank investments?

What about the GSEs? Fannie, Freddie. Very different than VA/HUD. What about OPIC? Or the Federal Home Loan Banks?

It’s a well known fact that the govt of Cali has elected to keep PG&E afloat when it could've (maybe should’ve) been deemed insolvent like 12x over the pst 30yrs but it’s got private stock and yet is a play toy for the policies to be directed that the politicians want.

What about the Chicago Skyway or Dulles Toll Road?

https://ijglobal.com/articles/99720/chi ... isition-us

https://www.atlasarteria.com/stores/_sh ... 04.pdf?v=6

For the above, the answer is: if the government owns AND manages any of those entities listed? That's socialism.

So for the above---which of the CEO's is collecting a Government paycheck...which government, and what's their title within said government?

If you can't give me a name and title? That's not socialism.

It's a simple definition. What you're talking about are things like handouts, bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. None of which have anything to do with socialism.

Dulles Toll Road has been discussed before. Dulles Greenway section is a private road----owned by a private corporation. So that's NOT socialism currently. It was SUPPOSED to move to management by the State of VA in 2036. But it would still be privately owned....again, NOT socialism.

" Dulles Greenway section is a private road----owned by a private corporation."

And yet it is regulated by state driving regulations enforced by public law enforcement officers. Hmm.

This public-private abomination evidenced in the HOT lanes adjacent to the Capital Beltway and the "improvements" to the Pentagon Expressway has to end. The most expensive and difficult portion of road building is obtaining the continuous right-of-way (look at the Grand Prix section of the Beltway in Md near the LDS Disneyland). Private interests who pony up a little infrastructure rehabilitation cash in return for right to collect tolls are parasitic bottom-feeders. F'em, it is a public right-of-way, not private. Part of the reason the Greenway has problems is that the owners had to pay for the right-of-way, and that there is not much justification for the absurd rates given the road doesn't really go anywhere. It is an expensive commuting tool for further development in the Piedmont along 15 and the Rt.7 area beyond Leesburg. But hey, that's the Commonwealth for you, public outlay for private gain.

[RedFromMI]

Some of the best graffiti ever used to be in that stretch...