"Capitalism takes more people out of poverty than charity does" - Bono

[Penelope]

[QUOTE="Tehon, post: 18495784, .

The rich dominate every society going back through history?

In history people got rich because they were connected with the government which stole money from the people. Under capitalism you get rich by inventing products that poor people can use to greatly improve their lives . You don't get more civilized and productive than when first generation rich Republicans invent smart phone supercomputers that 100 million Americans now can afford to carry in their pockets.
Take away the incentive to get rich and 120 million human beings Slowly starve to death as they did in the USSR and read China under Tehons Marxist communism .
It's always nice to have the Marxist death cult represented here .[/QUOTE]

Take away the incentive to get rich and people starve to death? We all know people who strive to get rich, they usually end up broke or crooked.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[QUOTE="Tehon, post: 18495784, .

The rich dominate every society going back through history?

In history people got rich because they were connected with the government which stole money from the people. Under capitalism you get rich by inventing products that poor people can use to greatly improve their lives . You don't get more civilized and productive than when first generation rich Republicans invent smart phone supercomputers that 100 million Americans now can afford to carry in their pockets.
Take away the incentive to get rich and 120 million human beings Slowly starve to death as they did in the USSR and read China under Tehons Marxist communism .
It's always nice to have the Marxist death cult represented here .

Take away the incentive to get rich and people starve to death? We all know people who strive to get rich, they usually end up broke or crooked.[/QUOTE]
Most people strive to get rich and those who succeed give us a society in which 100 million Americans can afford to have smart phone super computers in their pockets you don't get much more Progressive and justice than that. Do you have a great new invention in mind that you can engineer and market that 100 million Americans will want to buy and use for hours each day. If not you should shut up and worship your superiors who make your life out of extremevpoverty and deprivation possible.

 

[RodISHI]

M....

I do not call people having to work 2 or more full-time jobs just to survive independence.......

Then you are lazy and infantile.

That is why blue collar workers, (you know who they are) are on SNAP more than white collars workers, who sit on their a..es.

Are you trying to say that white collar workers are lazy, comrade? Or that they don't often have to work more than one job as well?

Having personally known someone that couldn’t read and write and became a very successful private contractor, I know if someone has the drive they can succeed under most any circumstances.

One person, really. What kind of contractor?
Who did his proposals (bids) and write his bills?

Basic billings are fairly easy even for those of us who are or were functionally illiterate by societies standards. I have an Uncle that even today can but barely read and write that makes a lot more than many people with formal educations. He stills sells his services to high end contractors and their customers as he has talents that most will never have.

BTW, secretaries are a dime a dozen too that are more than willing to type up formal proposals for ya when ya need one.

So secretaries are a dime a dozen. Does he work for cash. What kind of contractor is he? You didn't say.

No need for me to say what services and talents he has that he contracts out as it doesn't matter. There are people with all kinds of talents that others are willing to pay for that do not require much in the way of writing or reading skills.

 

[Votto]

The big lie about capitalism is that everyone benefits. The exact opposite is actually the truth. Capitalism requires that there are haves and have nots. It requires that there are more people than employement to work. its driven by supply but more importantly demand. This demand is generated by those wishing to display their status as haves. The people that really benefit are the ones that make whatever bullshit product you dont really need.

Every society has the haves and have nots.

With Capitalism, you just have more haves.

Which do you prefer?

 

[task0778]

"Government doesn't stand a chance against capital accumulation in America. So it succumbs to it."

See, here's where you go wrong. Gov't DOES have a chance, in fact it has the power to regulate capitalism as it sees fit. That why you see something called UNIONS and labor laws and suchlike. It doesn't have to succumb to the influence of capital accumulation, but if it does it's due to the weakness and corruption of the politicians who allow themselves to be corrupted. And it is ultimately on the voters to remove those people from office; if we don't then we all bear some responsibility for what happens. And here's the thing that you miss: corruption occurs in EVERY form of economic model and gov't because PEOPLE run them and if left to their own devices will lie, cheat, and steal or otherwise take advantage of everyone else to further their own ends. It is a human failing that is not specific to capitalism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The big lie about capitalism is that everyone benefits. The exact opposite is actually the truth. Capitalism requires that there are haves and have nots.

wrong of course, Steve Jobs could not get rich unless everyone could afford or have
his inventions. Under capitalism a company has to provide the best jobs and products possible just to survive. Under libsocialism there is no incentive to do either. Why do you think 120 million human souls slowly starved to death in USSR and Red China. Ever heard of east/west germany? The experiment has been done 132 times. Where have you been?? See why we say that a liberal will be a total and perfect illiterate? Is any other conclusion possible?.

 

[Asclepias]

The big lie about capitalism is that everyone benefits. The exact opposite is actually the truth. Capitalism requires that there are haves and have nots.

wrong of course, Steve Jobs could not get rich unless everyone could afford or have
his inventions. Under capitalism a company has to provide the best jobs and products possible just to survive. Under libsocialism there is no incentive to do either. Why do you think 120 million human souls slowly starved to death in USSR and Red China. Ever heard of east/west germany? The experiment has been done 132 times. Where have you been???.

You sound like an idiot. Going into debt is not being able to "afford" something. Its the mentality of the "have nots" trying to appear as "haves" or "able to afford it" that generates the sales. Its simply a cruel trick based on the human drive to have status symbols. To further emphasize how wrong you are one only need to look at how societies that were socialistic in nature developed. All groups of humans first employed a communistic society. They then had more leisure time where innovators were able to specialize creating better technology for different aspects of their society.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Going into debt is not being able to "afford" something..

so you are saying the 130 million Americans who have had a smart phone super computer in the their pockets for the last 10 years cant afford them? This is a simple yes or no question for the perfectly illiterate liberal.

 

[Asclepias]

. Going into debt is not being able to "afford" something..

so you are saying the 130 million Americans who have had a smart phone super computer in the their pockets for the last 10 years cant afford them? This is a simple yes or no question for the perfectly illiterate liberal.

Nothing is a simple yes or no question. Thats the problem with you retarded conservatives. Give you a hint. Most americans are in bad debt. How are you so stupid you didnt know this?

Majority of Americans Die in Debt

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. All groups of humans first employed a communistic society..

as a perfect illiterate you have no basis to know that!!


Free RepublicWhy the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism)

Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. Bradford served as Governor of Plymouth Colony from 1620 to 1647 and chronicled in great detail everything that happened in the colony.

By 1623, it was obvious the colony was barely producing enough corn to keep everyone alive. Fresh supplies from England were few and far between. Without some major change, the colony would face famine again. In his chronicle, Bradford described what was going wrong and how it was solved (pardon the King James English):

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

With weak crops and little hope of supply, the Pilgrims divided the parcels among the families and told them to grow their own food. They found that those who would pretend they couldn’t work due to infirmity, weakness or inability (sound familiar?) gladly went to work in the fields. Corn production increased dramatically and famine was averted because communism was eliminated. Bradford’s account doesn’t end here; he goes on to describe why he believed the communal system failed. Understanding the reasons for the failure is just as important, if not more important, than learning about the failure itself. Governor Bradford wrote:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter than the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.

The communal system failed because it treated the older and wiser the same way as the young and brash. It failed because it rewarded the less productive as much as the more productive. It failed because members of the community found that they could do less and still get the same benefit. All of these problems arose in a very religious community in which gluttony and laziness were considered sins and drunkenness was rare. How much more would communism fail in a larger society where such problems are rampant! By returning to a system in which the older and wiser are respected, and by reorganizing so that one’s benefit was directly tied to his production, the Pilgrims ensured the survival of their colony. Governor Bradford, however, ultimately attributes the failure of the “common cause” to something much deeper:

JamestownWhen US tried Communism [ History of Jamestown: 1607 to 1611 ])

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nothing is a simple yes or no question.

For 3rd time: so you cant tell us if the 130 million Americans who have smart phone super computers in their pockets can afford them??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most americans are in bad debt. How are you so stupid you didnt know this?

Majority of Americans Die in Debt

if you have evidence that I don't know this I will pay you $10,000. Bet??

 

[Asclepias]

. All groups of humans first employed a communistic society..

as a perfect illiterate you have no basis to know that!!


Free RepublicWhy the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism)

Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. Bradford served as Governor of Plymouth Colony from 1620 to 1647 and chronicled in great detail everything that happened in the colony.

By 1623, it was obvious the colony was barely producing enough corn to keep everyone alive. Fresh supplies from England were few and far between. Without some major change, the colony would face famine again. In his chronicle, Bradford described what was going wrong and how it was solved (pardon the King James English):

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

With weak crops and little hope of supply, the Pilgrims divided the parcels among the families and told them to grow their own food. They found that those who would pretend they couldn’t work due to infirmity, weakness or inability (sound familiar?) gladly went to work in the fields. Corn production increased dramatically and famine was averted because communism was eliminated. Bradford’s account doesn’t end here; he goes on to describe why he believed the communal system failed. Understanding the reasons for the failure is just as important, if not more important, than learning about the failure itself. Governor Bradford wrote:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter than the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.

The communal system failed because it treated the older and wiser the same way as the young and brash. It failed because it rewarded the less productive as much as the more productive. It failed because members of the community found that they could do less and still get the same benefit. All of these problems arose in a very religious community in which gluttony and laziness were considered sins and drunkenness was rare. How much more would communism fail in a larger society where such problems are rampant! By returning to a system in which the older and wiser are respected, and by reorganizing so that one’s benefit was directly tied to his production, the Pilgrims ensured the survival of their colony. Governor Bradford, however, ultimately attributes the failure of the “common cause” to something much deeper:

JamestownWhen US tried Communism [ History of Jamestown: 1607 to 1611 ])

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

See what I mean about you being an idiot? The pilgrims are not even close to being the first group of humans. They were driven by wealth and religious freedom you moron.

They had to go into debt just to finance their trip. They literally were victims of capitalism.

 

[Asclepias]

Most americans are in bad debt. How are you so stupid you didnt know this?

Majority of Americans Die in Debt

if you have evidence that I don't know this I will pay you $10,000. Bet??

Did you not see the link in the post? Pay up.

"New data shows that 73% of American consumers die in debt. The average total balance left over is $61,554 (and that includes mortgage debt). The numbers come from Experian FileOne and Credit.com, which examined the average debt of people who were alive in October 2016 but died in December 2016.

Of the 73% who died with debt, the most common kind of debt was from credit card balances. Mortgage debt, outstanding auto loans, personal loans and student loansfollowed, in that order. On average, the remaining unpaid balances included $25,391 in student loans, $4,531 in credit card debt, $17,111 in auto loans and $14,793 in personal loans."

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing is a simple yes or no question.

For 3rd time: so you cant tell us if the 130 million Americans who have smart phone super computers in their pockets can afford them??

I can and i did tell you. Learn how to read.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The pilgrims are not even close to being the first group of humans.

if I said they were first group I will pay you $10,000. Bet?? Do you know what a straw man is?

 

[Asclepias]

The pilgrims are not even close to being the first group of humans.

if I said they were first group I will pay you $10,000. Bet?? Do you know what a straw man is?

Yes. You mentioning the pilgrims was a straw man. I just made you address that fact. I dont allow straw men to exist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nothing is a simple yes or no question.

For 3rd time: so you cant tell us if the 130 million Americans who have smart phone super computers in their pockets can afford them??

I can and i did tell you. Learn how to read.

so you are saying 130 million Americans have had smart phone super computers in their pockets for 10 years but cant afford them?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes. You mentioning the pilgrims was a straw man. .

why?

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing is a simple yes or no question.

For 3rd time: so you cant tell us if the 130 million Americans who have smart phone super computers in their pockets can afford them??

I can and i did tell you. Learn how to read.

so you are saying 130 million Americans have had smart phone super computers in their pockets for 10 years but cant afford them?

Yes. If they could they wouldnt be in debt.