The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

Capitalism in its pure form doesn't last long. As its unsustainable. It either degenerates into varying degrees of oligarchy as concentrations of private power corrupt the political system, or the people regulate it to prevent such abuses.

Regulated capitalism is the only sustainable variant of capitalism. And it works much better than unregulated capitalism.


You remind me of the Menendez brothers , who after murdering their parents, asked the court for mercy because they were orphans.

It is also like trying to use a watch as a hammer. It aint going to work.


Politicians do not like Capitalism because , in such a system they have NO POWER. They can not exchange goodies for votes. They can not lawfully steal from "A" in order to give to "B".

They can not use Treasury Funds to invade Country XYZ just because.


So they have to create FASCISM, er , excuse me, "regulated capitalism" in order to satisfy their megalomaniac urges. They not the businessmen , determine whether Capitalism is working.

.


.
 
I'm all for free speech. But journalistic standards have fallen so low that no one has the information it takes to make informed decisions any longer. In this respect, I think FOX news has lead the way in the race to the bottom.

You're for free speech, but Fox News really needs to be outlawed?
Well, no probably not. But they should be required to have a name that more accurately reflects their mission. Something like Fox Simpleminded Propaganda Machine.
 
Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

The end of what story, Orgasmman? I didn't say anything about capitalism running a country, what are you talking about? You doing coke? What if you actually read the post and respond to what I actually said? Just a thought.

My user name has nothing to do with orgasms, dude. If you don't know what 'orogenic' means, there are online dictionaries that can aid you in this matter.

Ah, thanks. I thought it was a reference to the woody you get every time we talk about government solving your problems for you.
 
The government has a legal obligation to regulate the economy. Get over it already.

Whoa there Cowboy. You accurately pointed out the Federal government has the authority to regulate trade between the States and with foreign countries. You were tripping a bit by saying that means authority to means they are required to. You have the authority to paint your house pink, that doesn't require you to paint it pink, but that government loving orgasm part aside, what you said was essentially true.

But now that right to regulate trade between States turns into the "obligation" to regulate the entire economy? You didn't study logic in school, did you amorous guy?


Well, that is a silly argument. Using your logic, they also have the power to provide for the common defense, but according to you, that doesn't mean that they are required to. Of course it does, silly. That is what it means to govern.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

You may want to Google Constitutional Authority so you know what that means.
 
Do I really need to cite SCOTUS rulings wrt the commerce clause, or are you able to look those up on your own? Because the SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that the clause means much more than you assume. And I said nothing about "intrastate commerce", so, straw man.

Gotcha, the SCOTUS knows what the people who wrote it meant better than the people who wrote it.

And you said the government needs to regulate our economy, that includes both interstate and intrastate commerce, Skippy. So are you confirming they have no say on intrastate commerce or you just playing another round of yes I did say that, but I didn't, because I did ... not say it, you know what I didn't say I said that I didn't say what I said.
 
Well, that is a silly argument. Using your logic, they also have the power to provide for the common defense, but according to you, that doesn't mean that they are required to. Of course it does, silly. That is what it means to govern.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Shouldn't you be off worshiping the volcano god and sacrificing virgins to Quetzalcoatl to appease for carbon sins lest Gaia destroy the world?

Shouldn't you at least attempt to stay on topic?
 
The government has a legal obligation to regulate the economy. Get over it already.

Whoa there Cowboy. You accurately pointed out the Federal government has the authority to regulate trade between the States and with foreign countries. You were tripping a bit by saying that means authority to means they are required to. You have the authority to paint your house pink, that doesn't require you to paint it pink, but that government loving orgasm part aside, what you said was essentially true.

But now that right to regulate trade between States turns into the "obligation" to regulate the entire economy? You didn't study logic in school, did you amorous guy?


Well, that is a silly argument. Using your logic, they also have the power to provide for the common defense, but according to you, that doesn't mean that they are required to. Of course it does, silly. That is what it means to govern.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

You may want to Google Constitutional Authority so you know what that means.

What part of Section 8 are you having trouble understanding?
 
Do I really need to cite SCOTUS rulings wrt the commerce clause, or are you able to look those up on your own? Because the SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that the clause means much more than you assume. And I said nothing about "intrastate commerce", so, straw man.

Gotcha, the SCOTUS knows what the people who wrote it meant better than the people who wrote it.

And you said the government needs to regulate our economy, that includes both interstate and intrastate commerce, Skippy. So are you confirming they have no say on intrastate commerce or you just playing another round of yes I did say that, but I didn't, because I did ... not say it, you know what I didn't say I said that I didn't say what I said.

I made no mention of theFederal government controlling instrastate (aka within state boundaries) commerce. Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your argument.
 
Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

The end of what story, Orgasmman? I didn't say anything about capitalism running a country, what are you talking about? You doing coke? What if you actually read the post and respond to what I actually said? Just a thought.

My user name has nothing to do with orgasms, dude. If you don't know what 'orogenic' means, there are online dictionaries that can aid you in this matter.

Ah, thanks. I thought it was a reference to the woody you get every time we talk about government solving your problems for you.

Ad hominem - the last resort of the scoundrel. Congratulations.
 
orogenicman said:
kaz said:
You may want to Google Constitutional Authority so you know what that means.

What part of Section 8 are you having trouble understanding?

LOL, you think this is an argument for you, orgasm?

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

I'm understanding it fine, I keep arguing the green, exactly what it sayd. It is you who thinks "have power to" means is required to.
 
Do I really need to cite SCOTUS rulings wrt the commerce clause, or are you able to look those up on your own? Because the SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that the clause means much more than you assume. And I said nothing about "intrastate commerce", so, straw man.

Gotcha, the SCOTUS knows what the people who wrote it meant better than the people who wrote it.

And you said the government needs to regulate our economy, that includes both interstate and intrastate commerce, Skippy. So are you confirming they have no say on intrastate commerce or you just playing another round of yes I did say that, but I didn't, because I did ... not say it, you know what I didn't say I said that I didn't say what I said.

I made no mention of theFederal government controlling instrastate (aka within state boundaries) commerce. Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your argument.

You said they are required to regulate the economy. By that you only meant interstate and international trade? Stop dancing and answer the question.
 
Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

The end of what story, Orgasmman? I didn't say anything about capitalism running a country, what are you talking about? You doing coke? What if you actually read the post and respond to what I actually said? Just a thought.

My user name has nothing to do with orgasms, dude. If you don't know what 'orogenic' means, there are online dictionaries that can aid you in this matter.

Ah, thanks. I thought it was a reference to the woody you get every time we talk about government solving your problems for you.

Ad hominem - the last resort of the scoundrel. Congratulations.

Call em as I see em
 
Do I really need to cite SCOTUS rulings wrt the commerce clause, or are you able to look those up on your own? Because the SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that the clause means much more than you assume. And I said nothing about "intrastate commerce", so, straw man.

Gotcha, the SCOTUS knows what the people who wrote it meant better than the people who wrote it.

And you said the government needs to regulate our economy, that includes both interstate and intrastate commerce, Skippy. So are you confirming they have no say on intrastate commerce or you just playing another round of yes I did say that, but I didn't, because I did ... not say it, you know what I didn't say I said that I didn't say what I said.

I made no mention of theFederal government controlling instrastate (aka within state boundaries) commerce. Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your argument.

You said they are required to regulate the economy. By that you only meant interstate and international trade? Stop dancing and answer the question.
Do I really need to cite SCOTUS rulings wrt the commerce clause, or are you able to look those up on your own? Because the SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that the clause means much more than you assume. And I said nothing about "intrastate commerce", so, straw man.

Gotcha, the SCOTUS knows what the people who wrote it meant better than the people who wrote it.

And you said the government needs to regulate our economy, that includes both interstate and intrastate commerce, Skippy. So are you confirming they have no say on intrastate commerce or you just playing another round of yes I did say that, but I didn't, because I did ... not say it, you know what I didn't say I said that I didn't say what I said.

I made no mention of theFederal government controlling instrastate (aka within state boundaries) commerce. Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your argument.

You said they are required to regulate the economy. By that you only meant interstate and international trade? Stop dancing and answer the question.
This seems pretty clear, to me: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,

We also have States and State markets.
 
kaz said:
You said they are required to regulate the economy. By that you only meant interstate and international trade? Stop dancing and answer the question.
This seems pretty clear, to me: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,

We also have States and State markets.

I'm not clear what is clear to you. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
 
kaz said:
You said they are required to regulate the economy. By that you only meant interstate and international trade? Stop dancing and answer the question.
This seems pretty clear, to me: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,

We also have States and State markets.

I'm not clear what is clear to you. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

That, Commerce, well regulated among States, foreign and domestic, is in our social Contract.
 

Forum List

Back
Top