Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't know whether your grasp of basic economics or history is more tragicomic.I am a capitalist.
I believe in the free market.
I also believe it has to have regulations to keep greed from distroying it.
An unfettered market results in concentration of the wealth in any free market into smaller and smaller hands until you no longer have a free market.
Unfettered capitalism has been proven over and over again by history to evolve into something else.
That is how the kings of europe all developed.
You need to watch the History Channel. The common Roman was dirt poor, so poor that those with money walked with armed guards, of heavily armed themselves, in Rome itself.
but
Compared to the people living ruff outside the Empire.. sure, to the Romans and standard civilization, living free in a tent of long house was poor.
And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.
Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,
But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.
They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.
And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.
Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,
But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.
They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.
War boody is the best boody.
Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,
But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.
They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.
War boody is the best boody.
Every time I came back from deployment I wanted some booty.
I fought for piece, and wanted a piece of what I was fighting for.
earnings and accumulations are redistributions, fuckknot.
Gee, you're dumb.
No, they are not redistributions. They are the result of voluntary transactions between buyers and sellers, and the seller's discipline to save and/or invest.
iow redistributions of wealth. Only a dum dum would think otherwise.
Then allow me an answer to this:Please identify an economy that does NOT fall in to either one of those 2 categories.
I'll try to stay awake
Still waiting, ass-hat
I already did, try to read the thread.
Mercantilism, barter systems, tribalism, the family unit, social democracy (LIKE THE USA), fuedalism, empire, monarchy, oligarchy, and hundreds and hundreds of hybrids.
The vast majority of econs that ever existed were unique hybrids incorporating elements of many isms.
You realize that you are absolutely stuck in a rut of Marxist thinking right? Because you are. The idea that capitalism is an alternative to socialism and communism is an idea that is purely Marxist.
I won't use the word "capitalism" being such that it is a pejorative. I do believe that a market economy is the most practicable means of distributing goods and services to those in the market for them, but an imperfect one to say the least. It falls upon the community that benefits from the market to bear the responsibility for mitigating the side effects, either through voluntary association, or democratic action--and likely both.
your input please, please include a definition of beneficial in your entry. Thanks.
In a CAPITALIST system there is no wealth redistribution.
Various Formula for the rate of Surplus-ValueSomeone care to inform the idiot that capitalism in concerned with wealth creation?
Splain your thinking. But you better put on your "A" game.
You need to watch the History Channel. The common Roman was dirt poor, so poor that those with money walked with armed guards, of heavily armed themselves, in Rome itself.
but
Compared to the people living ruff outside the Empire.. sure, to the Romans and standard civilization, living free in a tent of long house was poor.
And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.
Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,
But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.
They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.
your input please, please include a definition of beneficial in your entry. Thanks.
Unfettered capitalism is not survival of the fitest its survival of the most dishonest.
Those willing to do anything for money will win.
The decent people end up getting robbed by the not so decent people.
Communism: from each according to his ability to each according to his need
Capitalism: from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed?
That's not even close to the truth.
first off, communism requires a huge murder count to get properly installed. Then it needs more murder to keep it in place.
In a CAPITALIST system there is no wealth redistribution.
No, LC is correct in saying that there IS wealth redistribution within a capitalist system.
However it is largely voluntary.
A capitalist has optimized producing goods and services within a competitive environment because there is a demand for them from individuals who have independently decided to convert their earnings to those goods or services.
These individuals ELECT to redistribute their wealth however they please.
Non-capitalist systems rely on non-competitive environments and centralized, authoritarian planning to determine what is best for individuals to have or not.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso[/ame]And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.
Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,
But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.
They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.
I don't look at Rome with Rose colored glasses. The Romans were ruthless..but ruthless with benefits. You are right..if you accepted them..you accepted the best technology in the world. If you didn't, they wiped you out. But I don't think "the poor" had squat...or they would have been many more revolts and revolutions.
And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.
Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,
But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.
They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.
I don't look at Rome with Rose colored glasses. The Romans were ruthless..but ruthless with benefits. You are right..if you accepted them..you accepted the best technology in the world. If you didn't, they wiped you out. But I don't think "the poor" had squat...or they would have been many more revolts and revolutions.
Capitalism and social darwinism have long been found as two tenents of the same perspective.
