The Tea Party sees Thanksgiving as a morality tale about finding salvation in Capitalism. The Pilgrims were failed Socialists who turned to Capitalism for survival. Only after foregoing communal ownership of property and allowing private ownership did the colony prosper. (Communism could also have been used, but socialism is the bogey meme du jour.)
The actual historical details are much more interesting than the Tea Party myth.
The Pilgrims formed a start-up and the Merchants and Adventurers of London were their venture capitalists. The Merchants would put up the cash for the supplies and the trip to the New World and the colonists would put up the labor. They signed a seven-year contract in which all land, livestock, lumber, furs, and other trade goods were held in partnership. At the end of the seven year period, the company was to be dissolved and the assets distributed. The Pilgrims were more like shareholders in a corporation than socialists.
Interestingly, only one Pilgrim died on the 66-day voyage. This is attributed to the fact that the Mayflower had never carried passengers, she was a “sweet ship.” Seepage from previous wine cargos had impregnated the ship’s timbers and acted like a disinfectant.
The Mayflower landed in November of 1620 and the first Thanksgiving was held in 1621. The colony’s governor, William Bradford, abolished the communal land arrangement and gave each household a parcel of land, in 1623. It seems unlikely that a colony in the grips of a famine, caused by evils of communal property ownership, would host a three-day feast. The prospects of a famine would come the following year with a devastating summer drought and the seasonal migration of fish and fowl.
Agriculture did become more profitable in following years, in part due to improved cultivation techniques of corn, a crop for which the colonists had no experience, and in part due to the increase in each individual’s exertion on their privately held land.
Two attempts to make payments to the investors were met with pirates, who captured the ships bringing back furs and timber. The investors, fearing a total loss of their investment, settled with the Pilgrims for £1800 after an investment of nearly £7000.
H/T: NY Times, New American, Dictionary of American History.
-David Drumm (Nal)
Ekerya,
A meaningless combination of words would be “aca abad.” A nonsensical combination of words would be “goat green grape.” A combination of words with a meaning that you disagree with would be “most free market transactions.”
I think the part problem is that you’re diagramming that phrase incorrectly. Free market modifies transactions, serving as an adjective. It is not serving as a noun. It answers the question “What kind of transactions” (most answers the question “how many?”).
http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/Examples-of-Adjectives.html
Now, one can disagree with the idea conveyed by the phrase, but saying that it has no meaning is clearly wrong.
The message (and underlying assumption) of the phrase is that is that individual transactions can be free market and still take place outside of a free-market economy. Which brings up the other part of our communication problem. A Free market is different than a free market economy (or market economy which is what I’ll use to avoid confusion). The two terms are not interchangeable. All markets in a market economy are free, but not all free markets need a market economy to exist. Thus the term… (wait for it)… mixed economy. Which is, an economy in which some markets are regulated or controlled, and others are free.
Once again, there is nothing contradictory to saying that socialism can co-exist with free markets. That’s what a mixed economy, by definition, is.
For my next trick, I’ll explain the difference between a blues and the blues.
whoops, sorry Uncle Buddha.
Uncle Buddha:
how much did you say you would pay me to post trollery so you could respond to it?
I am playing Brahams Violin Concerto in D major while I read your replies so I can stomach the dogma and bull shit.
pardon the punctuation error, multi-tasking and revision can be incompatible dance partners.
“you’re still wrong.“
What I dispute is your assertion that socialists want to gas people. Even if you are right about Shaw – which I have no knowledge of – you’re still wrong? Your logical error is the composition fallacy (“from each to all”). What Shaw did or did not want is not an indicator of what all socialists want. It’s an indicator of your faulty logic and wishful thinking.
fallacy \ˈfa-lə-sē\, n.,
1 a obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception
2 a : a false or mistaken idea (popular fallacies) b : erroneous character : erroneousness
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
Hey! Even the obsolete definition applies to your statements. Which is funny considering “obsolete” also applies to your stance in general.
“Actually if there was no minimum wage there would probably be more employment and with greater employment wage prices would rise.” (GG)
===================================================
Pearls made of paste
Spoken like a true, union busting fascist.
Actually we tried no minimum wage before and what it led to was staggering poverty and wage slavery.
The only one disconnected from reality is you and your idea that business operates out of any other concern than profit. History proves business could give a damn about labor or the social fabric as long as those running the show can line their pockets without consequence of their bad acts.
Buddha is Laughing:
dispute my assertion that George Bernard Shaw wanted to gas people and that he was a socialist. Dispute the reality of what the National Socialists did.
Rolfmao indeed.
Buddha is Laughing:
Actually if there was no minimum wage there would probably be more employment and with greater employment wage prices would rise. During the boom times around here McDonald’s was paying over $8/hour because they were having a hard time finding people to work for minimum wage.
Your ideas stifle employment of minorities and young people. Another example of your disconnect from reality.
Capitalism creates wealth and wealth is the only antidote to poverty.
roflmao
Andy needs to start hiring better people.
ekeyra:
“2 How much time do you spend depriving 10 year old children of oxygen to be so familiar with their level of intellect?”
that is a damn good question. It would never have crossed my mind to use that as a slur. Would it have crossed yours?
I think we might be dealing with a deviant personality here, what do you think? Socialists like George Bernard Shaw wanted to gas people, the Nazis did gas people do you think there might be a connection?
Using logic we can say that most socialists want to gas people. Is it being socialists that causes that desire or are they socialists because they have that desire?
Chicken or the egg?
your thoughts?
Not answering and not having answers are not the same thing.
1) No one should have nuclear weapons. They are a bad idea. That being said, they are far too dangerous to leave in the hands of individuals and/or (worse) corporations. It would take about a week before some asshat CEO wanted to use the for profit. Being that it is a technological genie that cannot be easily put back in the bottle, the government is the holder of last resort.
2) I think that the minimum wage is a terrible idea and should be replaced with a living wage. Employers have unequal bargaining power in determining wages. A minimum wage is nothing more than a regulation (like an antitrust regulation or child labor laws) that prevents abusive business practices made simply out of your favorite motivation: greed. Lobbyists have managed to water it down with so many exceptions and keep it from being raised to match inflation so many times over the years that it has become an ineffective and arbitrary threshold that keeps many in poverty. This is why it should be replaced with a living wage standard instead based on what minimum income is required to keep workers at the very low end of the scale out of poverty. But keeping people out of poverty doesn’t match your abusive 16th Century free trade mentality, does it, bootlicker?
Two more questions you dont have answers for
1 Why entrust nuclear weapons to the US government which is the only orginization in history to use them, and on innocent civilians no less.
2 Im sure you believe minimum wage is a wonderful idea, so why not just set it at 100 dollars an hour and we’ll all be rich?
Russians are irrelevant to your abuse of terms.
“You can buy and sell all the ice cream you want. Uranium? Not so much. Don’t believe it? Try whipping together some uranium sorbet and getting it to market and see how long it takes the FBI and the NRC to show up.”
Haha tell that to the russians
BTW, your comments are troll crap, but I love the avatar. Great movie. I’m guessing you were cheering for the aliens.
You seem to be the one who misunderstands free markets.
They can be free or constrained by segment. You can buy and sell all the ice cream you want. Uranium? Not so much. Don’t believe it? Try whipping together some uranium sorbet and getting it to market and see how long it takes the FBI and the NRC to show up.
“Free” refers to the nature of the transactions as voluntary. Free markets in modern economic parlance means two or more individuals (or agents) voluntarily exchange economic goods, either tangible commodities like durable or fungible goods and/or money or nontangible services. It doesn’t mean “free” as in “anything goes”. It’s a common mistake that propaganda trolls make when they misuse the term “free market” when what they mean is “free trade” in the usage of 16th Century mercantilists and statesman Michel de Montaigne – the proposition that exploitation is required for a transaction with an “exploiter” and an “exploited”. This is a fallacy still common with those who wish to justify unlimited greed and deregulation. In reality, the modern term “free market” is driven by mutual benefit – a win/win scenario, not a win/lose scenario required by free trade.
Once again, trolls misuse terms to hide their intent, in this case, simple greed and avoidance of punishment for criminal behaviors.
As to your insipid questions?
1) Do your own homework, Ms. Home Schooled.
2) I don’t deprive children of oxygen, but I do have to deal with trolls all the time so I do get to see the aftermath.
Gyges you and B seem to be lacking a fundamental understanding of what exactly a free market is to just throw out garbage that socialism and free markets are compatible. “Most free market exchanges” is a meaningless combination of words. Either all interactions are voluntary or a free market does not exist.
Also B two questions:
1 what is the mathematical formula the government uses to determine minimum wage?
2 How much time do you spend depriving 10 year old children of oxygen to be so familiar with their level of intellect?
You can’t prove I’ve made up anything whereas I can prove the truth of my assertions just as easily as I (and Gyges) proved that you both operate off of made up definitions just like good lil’ propagandists. The shade of obfuscation always burns away in the sunlight of truth.
You’ll have to do better than nanny nanny boo boo. However, since you’ve shown you have all the intellect of a 10 year old who has been persistently deprived of oxygen, I’m not really surprised you’re reduced to this.
It’s not only sad, but hilariously funny.