Trust Dictionaries

I am going to leave this one up to Webster’s who seems to understand the nuances of Socialism and Communism vs. Capitalism.

The gripe I have is with Leftists who state a simple definition of Socialism as government owning production or the means of production. Some in media also use this definition. This has long been used as a blanket denial of socialism. One can say that definition is the hurdle and they are not advocating that. Thus, they blame you for misstating their position. It becomes a semantics argument. I reject that — and the approach.

That is why I believe Dem0ocrats are some of the most disingenuous or dishonest people there are. And why it is often pointless talking with them. They’ll throw these simple or deceptive meanings out there and expect you to comply with it. What is the point?

It is better to say government controls the means of production. Even that is a little flawed in today’s definitions of Socialism. They’ve been working at creating vagueness for years.

So here is the definition of Socialism and I encourage people to see this page for more information. Webster’s claims communism is one of their most looked up words.


1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Then we come to the basic Hitler description of Socialism. Asked prior to WWII about abolishing private property, he wanted people to keep their private property just as long as they understand that they are agents of the state. In this way, government does not need to own production or private property, merely control it. While you may own it, you and the property are virtually controlled by the state. All they need is control.

That same philosophical distinction can apply to production. All the state needs is control, which can be achieved by regulations or other arms of the state. So that is the dirty thing Leftisits don’t want to talk about or you to know, as long as you accept their definitions.

Oil boom, doom and gloom

I have to take some disagreement with the general views in this piece.
So I’ll take some issue with it.

OPEC Messes With Texas

by Kristin Tate 28 Nov 2014 | Brietbart

It’s official: OPED has declared war on Texas gas and oil. During a meeting in Vienna yesterday, OPEC countries kept crude oil output targets unchanged. The policy is likely to cause trouble for U.S. oil production, much of which is conducted in Texas.

As to not lose market share to the American fracking boom, Saudi Arabia has inundated the U.S. with cheap oil. The intention is to push U.S. producers out of the market space.

Crude oil is currently selling for around $70 per barrel. At this rate, much U.S. drilling could become unprofitable. Leonid Fedun, oil tycoon and vice president of OAO Lukoil, said that some U.S.-based producers are at risk of becoming “victims of their own success,” according to Bloomberg News.

Fedun reportedly said, “In 2016, when OPEC completes this objective of cleaning up the American marginal market, the oil price will start growing again. The shale boom is on a par with the dot-com boom. The strong players will remain, the weak ones will vanish….The major strike is against the American market.”

Fracking helped transform Texas into an energy powerhouse. The process — which involves blasting water, sand, and other chemicals deep into the ground the bring up oil and gas — has allowed for cost-efficient oil extraction. Earlier this year, the Lone Star State was projected to produce 3.4 million barrels of oil by the end of 2014. If this threshold is met, Texas alone would likely outproduce every OPEC nation except for Saudi Arabia, the world’s cheapest oil producer.

To combat the competition posed by U.S. fracking, Saudi Arabia has flooded the market with cheap oil. So far they have been successful, wiping out “hundreds of billions of dollars in equity value from the market capitalization of U.S.-traded securities,” according to the Dallas Morning News. […\]


Well, I don’t buy all that. As if lower prices hurt us not help us. The eye always has to be on the longer term. Not to be beholden to OPEC’s and Saudis’ agenda would be a good thing. We’ve been strictly reactionary too long.

Also break that down, the other people hurt by collapsing prices — which were over inflated to begin with — are Iran and Russia. Should we accommodate their wishes for higher prices? The market will drive costs down, with the right policy adjustments.

The expense of building our infrastructure was a big part of getting started. Now that is well under way. The cost curve in most things inevitably bends downward. But meanwhile, price reduction does break the bubble of conventional wisdom on oil — over the last six or so years. So those players are not happy.

I think it is a positive that OPEC has not cut production. Saudis know those high prices were helping Iran. I would hate to fall in line with the agenda of Russia and Iran.

If it is a “war”, let’s examine the other side’s motives for a minute. A war means that they, predominately socialist economies, are inflicting lower prices on us as a weapon. Do you remember price wars? Who benefits by those? So now we are worried about the lower prices of oil, because the prices of heating fuel oils are still high. Have you checked, too, the difference in prices between regular and upper grades of gas? I’ve seen 60 an 70 cents per/gal differences.High test is only where regular was months back. Since when are lowering prices a problem?

I’ve read elsewhere that at 65$ per/barrel fracking etc is still profitable. And Iran needs about 117 per/barrel to fund themselves.(part of which is their terrorism outreach) And the profit margin still appears to be there in the refined products.(crack spread [1]) Maybe its me, but I’d think our government poses a bigger threat to the industry(bottom line) than Saudis flooding us with cheap oil.

But the way it hurts those mostly socialistic economies is worse, in effect, than what we see here. The article mentions the mitigating factor, Texas is invested in much more than oil. Even in the Midwest there is a lot more to the economic story than oil prices. Contrast that with Mid East countries. They depend on oil revenue for everything. It pays their bills.

So who is hurting whom? Are we to believe they are intentionally hurting their own economies to spite themselves, just to make it harder on Texas, and the US, to carry out our policies? If they are, that is a competition(challenge) worth engaging in. We need to win in the end by not being hostage to their demands and desires. In the above thinking, I guess we owe a big thanks to Saudis and OPEC for propping up oil prices to help Texas, and develop our resources. In effect, that would mean we are cutting our throats by developing these resources. Thus, they want OPEC cuts and higher prices?

Note: “A crack spread measures the difference between the purchase price of crude oil and the selling price of finished products, such as gasoline and distillate fuel, that a refinery produces from the crude oil. Crack spreads are an indicator of the short-term profit margin of oil refineries because they compare the cost of the crude oil inputs to the wholesale, or spot, prices of the outputs (although they do not include other variable costs or any fixed costs). The 3:2:1 crack spread approximates the product yield at a typical U.S. refinery: for every three barrels of crude oil the refinery processes, it makes two barrels of gasoline and one barrel of distillate fuel.” –

RightRing | Bullright