This is what left-wing policy results in

[P@triot]

Sharon Tirabassi in 2004 or around there, won $10 Million dollars from the lottery. You can see pictures of her, in expensive outfits, driving an expensive car, at a new apartment, living it up. By 2014, she was without a car, without a home, living in a subsidized apartment, riding the bus to her job. Utterly impoverished.

But hey, there's no benefit of money if you don't spend it! Well she spent it, now she's broke.

On the other side you have Steve Jobs. When Steve Jobs left Apple computer in the late 80s, (forced out I should say), he had a check for $10 Million dollars. Now he could have done the same thing as Sharon, and lived it up! Bought some luxury yachts. Maybe a super mansion.

Instead, he invested the money into a new company. A bran new computer graphics and special effects company. He paid half the money to get the company. And used the rest of the money to build the company up, and upgrade their stuff, and hire people. That company grew year after year until they put out their first all original product in 1995 named.... "Toy Story". The company is now called Pixar.

In 2006, Disney bought Pixar from Steve Jobs for stock worth $7.8 Billion dollars. He turned $10 Million into $7.8 Billion. While Sharon turned $10 Million into zero.

This is the difference between the pinball people, and the beer pong people. This is why poor people are poor, and rich people are rich. Rich people save and invest, and poor people spend and consume.

There is literally limitless ways to make money. You can make money doing almost anything. Almost ANYTHING.

I remember years ago, there was a truck driving lady. She would drive into the truck stop, where all the other truckers were, and pull out of her cab, this fold up swivel chair, and massive clipper, and tiny vacuum, and a bunch of gels and crap, and yell out "I'll clip your hair for $10". And these guys would line up, and get their hair cut at the truck stop.

 

[P@triot]

It is totally irrelevant in what I invest.

The only thing you "invest" in is socialism. You want the government to take from other people and hand it to you.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Oh look...what do you know...Bleipriester playing the victim as usual. Shocking. Workers can do anything they want. Anything. That's the beauty of America. The sky is the limit. There are endless stories of poor or dirt-poor people amassing unimaginable wealth because they pursued their dreams.

But...it's so much easier to play the victim and demand socialism, uh snowflake?

 

[P@triot]

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

Snowflake....I already proved you were lying about this in another thread. There are no private companies in Venezuela. The government dictates everything to them. Everything. Venezuela is a pure socialist nation. And as always the case, socialism has caused collapse, poverty, and misery.

 

[Andylusion]

Don't be so dense. What is wrong with you? You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America. Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor". No, socialism makes people poor.

Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

 

[P@triot]

One of the left's favorite false narrative is that nobody needs a firearm because we have law enforcement to "protect us". This woman strictly adhered to the left-wing ideology on personal protection - she relied solely on law enforcement. This morning, both she and her son are dead. Left-wing policy always ends in disaster.

Police tell Florida woman to 'stop calling 911' hours before her death

 

[Andylusion]

One of the left's favorite false narrative is that nobody needs a firearm because we have law enforcement to "protect us". This woman strictly adhered to the left-wing ideology on personal protection - she relied solely on law enforcement. This morning, both she and her son are dead. Left-wing policy always ends in disaster.

Police tell Florida woman to 'stop calling 911' hours before her death

Turned out to be not true. They made a correction to the story, where the police apparently said that to someone else. Which doesn't make any sense.

Regardless of that, if the rest of the story is to be believed, then they were shot with an AK-47. How many gun bans does that violate? Apparently the fix-all gun control laws, didn't work.

 

[Bleipriester]

Don't be so dense. What is wrong with you? You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America. Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor". No, socialism makes people poor.

Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

 

[Andylusion]

Don't be so dense. What is wrong with you? You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America. Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor". No, socialism makes people poor.

Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash. I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all. None. I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works? Even if both of you make minimum wage? That would still be 1/3 more than I make. You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money. Your claim isn't logical.

 

[Bleipriester]

Don't be so dense. What is wrong with you? You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America. Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor". No, socialism makes people poor.

Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash. I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all. None. I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works? Even if both of you make minimum wage? That would still be 1/3 more than I make. You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money. Your claim isn't logical.

No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.

 

[Andylusion]

Don't be so dense. What is wrong with you? You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America. Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor". No, socialism makes people poor.

Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash. I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all. None. I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works? Even if both of you make minimum wage? That would still be 1/3 more than I make. You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money. Your claim isn't logical.

No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.

Huh? When did I ever say that.

 

[Bleipriester]

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.


Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.



Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,


Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.


Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash. I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all. None. I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works? Even if both of you make minimum wage? That would still be 1/3 more than I make. You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money. Your claim isn't logical.

No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.

Huh? When did I ever say that.

Ok, 99 % made the decision to be poor and work all day.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't be so dense. What is wrong with you? You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America. Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor". No, socialism makes people poor.

Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash. I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all. None. I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works? Even if both of you make minimum wage? That would still be 1/3 more than I make. You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money. Your claim isn't logical.

Not all ventures, "pan out".

 

[danielpalos]

Don't be so dense. What is wrong with you? You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America. Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children. Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor". No, socialism makes people poor.

Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash. I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all. None. I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works? Even if both of you make minimum wage? That would still be 1/3 more than I make. You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money. Your claim isn't logical.

No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.

If it were that simple, we would not need corporate welfare or minimum wage laws; there is no upper limit to markets.

 

[Andylusion]

If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.

No one invests 100% of their money. I have internet right now, obviously. Yet I have thousands in stocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. The key is spending less than you make. Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.

Really? I made $19,000 last year. According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently..... workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money. I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million. Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more. You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month. You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring. 6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job. Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke. And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place. I could cut my internet and cell phone. I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent. I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box. I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken. I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that. There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV. I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV. They are always shocked I don't even own a TV. The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month. Cut out the TV. Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund. If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?

It doesn't really matter "what it means". You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise. Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite. Always. No exception. Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up. That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian. Of course they can. But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral. Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public. This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear. Go eat lunch. Go sit on a bench outside. Ignore students. We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy. Then we learned. He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next. Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office? 5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working. The other two are standing there talking about the weekend. Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation. Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies. No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work. Because no one wants a typewriter. People want computers. The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants. The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms. Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones. The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy. For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.

But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash. I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all. None. I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works? Even if both of you make minimum wage? That would still be 1/3 more than I make. You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money. Your claim isn't logical.

No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.

Huh? When did I ever say that.

Ok, 99 % made the decision to be poor and work all day.

Yes. I don't necessarily think they 'make the decision' to be poor and work all day. Rather I think they make choices, that lead them to that result.

It is more like a person on meth. Does any person say to themselves "I want to lose all my teeth"? No.
But they make the choice to start doing meth, which has the nearly universal result of losing your teeth.

No one says "I want to have my car repo'd". But they choose to buy a car they can't afford, and then are shocked they end up with the car repo'd.

However, people make choices all the time to live earning less. I have two direct real life examples.

Years ago when I was in high school, I worked at McDonalds, and a lady there had a degree in Architecture. I asked her, why the heck are you here!? She explained very directly, she didn't want a job where she was expected to work tons of hours, and drive far from home, and couldn't take time off whenever she wanted to be with her kids.

So she stayed at McDonald's earning less than $10 an hour (in the 90s), when she could have been making $40K a year entry level.

Another example was an engineer just a few years ago. She was the lowest paid engineer in the company. Her job was just doing engineering documentation. She decided she wanted to move up, and got a job at NetJets. Now if you know anything about NetJets, they are top dollar hard core company. They more than doubled her salary. Of course they wanted her to put in the hours, and kick butt. Well she spent 8 months there, and decided that she liked the relaxed easy going way of being a document engineer. She quit, came back, had her salary dropped down to half, like it was before, and was perfectly happy earning less than the median income.

People make the choice to earn less than they could, all the time.

But the two largest problems in our society is that people don't want to work hard, or own up. These are the two biggest problems that I constantly see.

The left-wing portrays that there are all these people working hard 80 hours a week, and getting $7.25 an hour. I don't see this. What I see constantly, is people that barely show up. Milk the clock. What to stand there and talk about nothing for hours on end.

My company, we just fired 6 people over the last 2 months, because they simply don't work. Even now, we've still got about two more that may need to go, and a third that doesn't look promising. And that isn't including new people we hire in that barely last a week. We hired two people, and after 3 days, one just disappeared, and the other said she didn't "feel like coming in"... and that was that.

The other problem is not wanting to own up. Not wanting to take responsibility. We have a guy that has about 10 years of experience in the tech industry. When I first met this guy, I was thinking why on Earth is this dude here? Now after I've gotten to know him, I know exactly why he's here making 12/hour, when he has enough skills to be working for Cisco or Microsoft.

He spend all his time, making sure that he has no responsibility for anything. He won't plug in a power cable, unless there is some document that says he was told to do that by someone else. You may be the best technician on the face of the Earth. But people in leadership, don't need someone who stands around "I didn't do it, not my fault, he told me to, blaw blaw". You will never move up the income ladder very far, trying to be captain of the 'not me club'.

Own your crap. Yes, I plugged in this thing to see if it worked. It didn't. I made the choice, it didn't work. Companies are desperately looking for that guy, not the "I have a note from a friend of the secretaries assistant, which says that someone in the engineering departments brother, gave the ok for me to plug this in!"

I have yet to meet anyone who actually worked, and worked more than 40 hours a week, that was poor. Never seen it.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...

The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...

The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela

True capitalism, fails every time.

Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[P@triot]

Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...

The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela

True capitalism, fails every time.

Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

It says "stateless society" snowflake. Conservatives have never advocated for a "stateless society". We have only advocated for legal, constitutional government. The fact that you have to resort to a straw man proves that you know you are wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...

The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela

True capitalism, fails every time.

Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

It says "stateless society" snowflake. Conservatives have never advocated for a "stateless society". We have only advocated for legal, constitutional government. The fact that you have to resort to a straw man proves that you know you are wrong.

A true AnCap, is stateless.

States and statism are a form of socialism.

 

[Andylusion]

Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...

The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela

True capitalism, fails every time.

Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

It says "stateless society" snowflake. Conservatives have never advocated for a "stateless society". We have only advocated for legal, constitutional government. The fact that you have to resort to a straw man proves that you know you are wrong.

That is 100% accurate. I have never in the entire 20 years I've been on internet forums, advocated a state-less system of anarchy. That's simply what the leftards must do. They portray the right-wing as supporting something they have never advocated, in order to attempt to discredit what they can't argue against.

 

[Billo_Really]

They are only allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.

Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'

The article doesn't say anything about forcing people to bake for gays.