Seriously, my theory is that liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism...

[Toronado3800]

Point A: the old system was socialist after the fact. The new system is socialist before the fact. The alternative is throwing the dying and poor out on the street like in the time of Jesus.

too stupid and perfectly liberal. The alternative is capitalism

Point B: Just showing how even you like some liberal ideas and should not go around yelling "stupid" at ppl for being liberal.

what?????????

A side light is anti trust laws are something the founding fathers did not see the need for. The world changed. Most everyone liberally found some power the government had to regulate it just like now.

what???????

To make it more simple and eliminate so.e of the "whats":

So the alternative you want in medicine is a pure capitalist system where if you cant pay you do not get treated? Or do you prefer the socialist one where we all pay whenever a broke guy shows up ill or with a gunshot wound? w/o debtor's prison it is hard to treat the broke and have them pay you.

 

[Brutus]

So the alternative you want in medicine is a pure capitalist system where if you cant pay you do not get treated?

too stupid!! the liberal is always a morality bigot. Children, for example, don't pay for their food even in a capitalist system!!

Or do you prefer the socialist one where we all pay whenever a broke guy shows up ill or with a gunshot wound? w/o debtor's prison it is hard to treat the broke and have them pay you.

too stupid!! the debate is how the majority pays, not whether a tiny minority gets welfare or prison. Do you see why we are positive the liberal will always have a low IQ?? Sorry. I'm sure yuj're a great guy despite being a liberal

 

[idb]

Your position was clarified earlier as a proponent of Governmental intervention and regulation.
No problem, they'll sort it out and make sure everythings fair.

 

[Brutus]

So the alternative you want in medicine is a pure capitalist system where if you cant pay you do not get treated?

]

but that is not pure capitalism. It would be like saying that pure capitalism demands that children go without health care because they can't pay for it. see why we say a liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism.

 

[Old Rocks]

Brutus, in a pure capitalistic system, how are the indigent going to pay for the treatment? What of the people like those in Alabama, that were working in low wage jobs, and not only did their home get totally destroyed, with everything they owned, right down to their toothbrushes gone, but the businesses they worked, were destroyed as well.

So, how do they pay for their medical bills? After all, in a pure capitalistic system, you don't have the money or credit, you don't get the service. Or do we just do an economic triage at the emergency room entrance, and those that cannot pass, tough shit.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus, in a pure capitalistic system, how are the indigent going to pay for the treatment? What of the people like those in Alabama, that were working in low wage jobs, and not only did their home get totally destroyed, with everything they owned, right down to their toothbrushes gone, but the businesses they worked, were destroyed as well.

So, how do they pay for their medical bills? After all, in a pure capitalistic system, you don't have the money or credit, you don't get the service. Or do we just do an economic triage at the emergency room entrance, and those that cannot pass, tough shit.

of course children don't have money either and yet get stuff regardless of whether economic system is capitalist. You seem all confused.

The basic idea is to cut costs by about 60% using capitalism. Then, most will be able to afford it, and the burden from those who can't will be tiny!

 

[Againsheila]

and that is why they don't support it. If this is a mistake I'd appreciate it if a liberal would offer something to indicate an understanding of capitalism. Thank you.

We don't have capitalism, we never did. In capitalism, you don't bail out a failing company, you let them fail. You don't pass laws against unions. You don't open the borders letting in unskilled labor to compete with your own unskilled labor. Face it, if we had capitalism, our income gap wouldn't be as bad as it is right now and the top 1% of our country wouldn't have made over 275% increase in their money since the 70's while the average person's income increase 3% over the same time period. We wouldn't have corporations bringing in skilled labor from other countries and laying off our skilled labor.

No we don't have capitalism, what we have is fascism.

 

[Againsheila]

Brutus, in a pure capitalistic system, how are the indigent going to pay for the treatment? What of the people like those in Alabama, that were working in low wage jobs, and not only did their home get totally destroyed, with everything they owned, right down to their toothbrushes gone, but the businesses they worked, were destroyed as well.

So, how do they pay for their medical bills? After all, in a pure capitalistic system, you don't have the money or credit, you don't get the service. Or do we just do an economic triage at the emergency room entrance, and those that cannot pass, tough shit.

There are people who were evacuated from New Orleans after Katrina, all over the country. Some of them still don't have their homes or their land back, some of them never will. That's not capitalism, that's fascism.

 

[Brutus]

I'd appreciate it if a liberal would offer something to indicate an understanding of capitalism. Thank you.

We don't have capitalism, we never did.

but who said we do or did have it?????? In every econ 101 class they teach that we have a mixed economy,i.e., elements of capitalism and socialism.

In capitalism, you don't bail out a failing company, you let them fail.

of course you don't let them fail when it would cause a world wide depression and almost all economists on both sides agree

You don't pass laws against unions.

actually capitalism is opposed to unions since unions are evil, they drive millions of jobs overseas and raise everyone's prices

You don't open the borders letting in unskilled labor to compete with your own unskilled labor.

actually liberals want open borders because the poor who come here identify with liberals who support liberal welfare programs that the illegals would utilize.

Face it, if we had capitalism, our income gap wouldn't be as bad as it is right now and the top 1% of our country

of course it is wonderful that the top 1% make so much since they pay 42% of all Federal taxes. If they didn't make so much the government would have to tax all of us far more!!
NOt to mention you can earn as much as you want here. All you need is something to offer that people want to buy more than anything else in the world. Do you have anything that people want?? Do you create jobs and new products that increase our standard of living?? Now you know why you are not rich and why the rich are so saintly and heroic

No we don't have capitalism, what we have is fascism.

then fascism must be the greatest thing in human history since we have the highest income in human history and as we speak 75 million of us can afford smart phone toys at $150/month

 

[Toronado3800]

Don't pay $150 a month for your smart phone. Get AT&T. I put up half my posts from a $75 a month Samsung. We can argue 24 hours a day if you get the internet on your hip!

 

[pinqy]

So the alternative you want in medicine is a pure capitalist system where if you cant pay you do not get treated?

]

but that is not pure capitalism. It would be like saying that pure capitalism demands that children go without health care because they can't pay for it. see why we say a liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism.

Actually, that would be pure capitalism. If you can't pay for something, you don't get it. So yes, children or whoever would go without health care if they can't pay or no one will voluntarily pay on their behalf. Under pure capitalism, the government would provide no support to anyone.

 

[Brutus]

So the alternative you want in medicine is a pure capitalist system where if you cant pay you do not get treated?

]

but that is not pure capitalism. It would be like saying that pure capitalism demands that children go without health care because they can't pay for it. see why we say a liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism.

Actually, that would be pure capitalism. If you can't pay for something, you don't get it. So yes, children or whoever would go without health care if they can't pay or no one will voluntarily pay on their behalf. Under pure capitalism, the government would provide no support to anyone.

too stupid!!!

1) no one has ever advocated pure capitalism, whatever that is. Even Friedman wanted the government to print the money, provide police, courts, prevent slavery, provide international boundaries, treaties, patent service, etc etc.

2) a capitalist economic system does not mean you don't have a social welfare sytem too, especially for those who are not participants in economic system.

3) the delusive liberal imagines that Friedman would prevent you from loving your kids parents neighbors etc because all relationships are somehow transformed to be only about buying and selling, not love.

4) what the liberal means is that under capitalism the government would provide no support to anyone if the government was only concerned with imposing capitalism everywhere. But that is so stupid only a liberal would bring it up.

5) liberals are morality bigots who imagine they are superior because their bleeding hearts care for those who can't purchase important things.

 

[pinqy]

]

but that is not pure capitalism. It would be like saying that pure capitalism demands that children go without health care because they can't pay for it. see why we say a liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism.

Actually, that would be pure capitalism. If you can't pay for something, you don't get it. So yes, children or whoever would go without health care if they can't pay or no one will voluntarily pay on their behalf. Under pure capitalism, the government would provide no support to anyone.

too stupid!!!

1) no one has ever advocated pure capitalism, whatever that is. Even Friedman wanted the government to print the money, provide police, courts, prevent slavery, provide international boundaries, treaties, patent service, etc etc.

Seriously? You're calling other people stupid and saying they don't know anything about capitalism, and citing Milton Friedman but you've never heard of David Friedman (Milton's son) and his writings on anarcho-capitalism?

What piss-poor school gave you a degree in economics? I certainly had to learn about David Friedman and anarcho-capitalism as well as all the other varieties.

 

[rdean]

This thread is hilarious.

Right wingers use phrases like "using capitalism".

So I'm looking through this tread for other phrases such as "Supply and Demand" or "Investment". Couldn't find them.

Do right wingers know what "capitalism" means?

Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition ---->This is where "Supply and Demand" comes in. Think about why. Think about what exactly this means. Think about how this works or doesn't work with all of the capital in the hands of just 3% of the population. Come on right wingers. Get out that "thinking cap". Dust it off, put it on and "think". It actually feels good if you try.

 

[Brutus]

all of the capital in 3% of the population.


Gee how is that possible when there are 1000's of NYSE and S&P companies that control tons of capital? How is it possible when most of the national wealth is in 150 million residential homes and apartment? Are they all owned by 3% of the people??

 

[edthecynic]

and that is why they don't support it. If this is a mistake I'd appreciate it if a liberal would offer something to indicate an understanding of capitalism. Thank you.

We don't have capitalism, we never did. In capitalism, you don't bail out a failing company, you let them fail. You don't pass laws against unions. You don't open the borders letting in unskilled labor to compete with your own unskilled labor. Face it, if we had capitalism, our income gap wouldn't be as bad as it is right now and the top 1% of our country wouldn't have made over 275% increase in their money since the 70's while the average person's income increase 3% over the same time period. We wouldn't have corporations bringing in skilled labor from other countries and laying off our skilled labor.

No we don't have capitalism, what we have is fascism.

Actually it's Feudalism, only the "Lords" are now the Corporations.

 

[Brutus]

Actually it's Feudalism, only the "Lords" are now the Corporations.

Hey I want to be a corporate Lord too!

Do they still have that nasty capitalist Republican requirement that you need to produce goods and services that millions of free people want to buy more than any others from anywhere in the entire world??

 

[edthecynic]

Actually it's Feudalism, only the "Lords" are now the Corporations.

Hey I want to be a corporate Lord too!

Do they still have that nasty capitalist Republican requirement that you need to produce goods and services that millions of free people want to buy more than any others from anywhere in the entire world??

No!
Thanks to the GOP our trade balance is negative.
Thanks St Ronnie!

 

[Brutus]

Actually it's Feudalism, only the "Lords" are now the Corporations.

Hey I want to be a corporate Lord too!

Do they still have that nasty capitalist Republican requirement that you need to produce goods and services that millions of free people want to buy more than any others from anywhere in the entire world??

No!
Thanks to the GOP our trade balance is negative.
Thanks St Ronnie!

actually Reagan was president back in the 1980's. See why we are positive a liberal will very very slow!!

 

[edthecynic]

Hey I want to be a corporate Lord too!

Do they still have that nasty capitalist Republican requirement that you need to produce goods and services that millions of free people want to buy more than any others from anywhere in the entire world??

No!
Thanks to the GOP our trade balance is negative.
Thanks St Ronnie!

actually Reagan was president back in the 1980's. See why we are positive a liberal will very very slow!!

And our negative trade balance started with Nixon, but went into high gear under Reagan, both are Republicans you said had a "nasty requirement" to produce goods and services the world wants, the "nasty" part being they didn't "require" any such thing.