CDZ What is Capitalism

[Agit8r]

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

Certainly the term "Middle Class" has changed considerably over the centuries.

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

Yes, it is. And you can thank the Democrats for that. In 1932 according to a Communist Party newspaper I own, the wealthiest 2% of this countries population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Then, Democrats took over both Houses of Congress for 40 continuous years, and they controlled the presidency for a good portion of that time as well.

The result of all of that Democrat rule was the wealthiest ONE percent now control 90 percent of this nations wealth. So, who were the Dems working for? Because they clearly weren't working for the middle class.

It seems that some other things happened between then and now too, eh?

 

[Agit8r]

It's a nice theory. History shows it to be as impracticable as it's "opposite" --communism.

No, HIstory shows that Capitalism kicks ass and produces vast wealth.

This is true. It makes a few wealthy beyond belief and kicks the ass of the masses

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

What? You have no will of your own? You are not capable of saying "I don't need that new TV?" Just wondering when personal responsibility kicks in or are all of you just infants with no will of your own?

Um, CDZ, dude.

 

[westwall]

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

Certainly the term "Middle Class" has changed considerably over the centuries.

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

Yes, it is. And you can thank the Democrats for that. In 1932 according to a Communist Party newspaper I own, the wealthiest 2% of this countries population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Then, Democrats took over both Houses of Congress for 40 continuous years, and they controlled the presidency for a good portion of that time as well.

The result of all of that Democrat rule was the wealthiest ONE percent now control 90 percent of this nations wealth. So, who were the Dems working for? Because they clearly weren't working for the middle class.

It seems that some other things happened between then and now too, eh?

40 years of continuous rule by a single party seems to have been the straw that broke the camels back. It take s a long time to get policies in place that dismantle the intent of the Founders and the Dems managed to do it in a period of around 60 years. Now, the problems that we have are directly attributable to the policies the Dems implemented in the 1930's and 1960's.

The middle class have less power than they ever have, the ruling elite have more and more to the point are working hard to remove the last bastion of defense we have which is the 2nd Amendment. As soon as they get rid of that inconvenient little Right, then the elite will truly turn you into a slave. And lo and behold look at who is funding all of that anti gun legislation..... Yup....billionaires.

 

[westwall]

No, HIstory shows that Capitalism kicks ass and produces vast wealth.

This is true. It makes a few wealthy beyond belief and kicks the ass of the masses

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

What? You have no will of your own? You are not capable of saying "I don't need that new TV?" Just wondering when personal responsibility kicks in or are all of you just infants with no will of your own?

Um, CDZ, dude.

It is a question, it is not an accusation, thus it is fully allowed in the CDZ.

 

[sakinago]

I relate them because much of our science, has been very wildly beneficial to the whole entire world. One big one (despite how you feel about this type of food) is GMOs. GMOs have wildly increased our ability to feed the masses. Not to mention, there are a lot of impoverished third world people out there walking around with android smartphones. Which is a product that 5 years ago wasn't even in the majority of Americans hands, is now affordable and improving the lives of those in 3rd world countries.

And they are why, slowly, every farmer is becoming a slave.

I can agree with you there too actually, but GMOs still have feed an insurmountable amount of starving children across the globe. More so than we could do before. And they have also kept many farmers in business, by keeping a steady stream of production despite unfavorable weather conditions that would have put them through some hard times

I think your attributing altruistic reasons where they arent really existing. If they were giving away the food I could see your point but in actuality they are just making money off starving kids. More marketing. No one stops to ask what are the results of those GMO in other countries. A population that cant feed itself and therefore dependent on the large corporations for more goods. Later down the road they are now a fresh market of consumers. Which oddly enough makes the corporations wealthier.

A. We are giving away A LOT of it
B. capitalism is a system where you increase wealth by providing a SERVICE to others at a price they deem worthy.

No someone is buying it and giving it away. The people that are benefiting financially are not giving it away.
I know what capitalism is.

So companies are not capable of charity?

And I'm not sure what the alternative would be to that. Work and give all your production away for nothing?

 

[Agit8r]

40 years of continuous rule by a single party seems to have been the straw that broke the camels back. It take s a long time to get policies in place that dismantle the intent of the Founders and the Dems managed to do it in a period of around 60 years. Now, the problems that we have are directly attributable to the policies the Dems implemented in the 1930's and 1960's.

The middle class have less power than they ever have, the ruling elite have more and more to the point are working hard to remove the last bastion of defense we have which is the 2nd Amendment. As soon as they get rid of that inconvenient little Right, then the elite will truly turn you into a slave. And lo and behold look at who is funding all of that anti gun legislation..... Yup....billionaires.

 

[sakinago]

A mixture of capitalism and communism is the way to go.

IDC what anyone says, communism has MANY good concepts to it. The only thing about communism is, we have 330 million people in this country. And 7 billion on the planet.. It just couldn't work..
Plus, communism and technology don't mix..

What do you mean communism and technology dont mix. I helped set up a city that has free wifi everywhere you go.

Communism calls for banishment of currency and non essentials.
A city with free wifi isn't communism lol

A city with free wifi is definitely communism. Its a service owned by the "state" for the benefit of the people.

Ever hear of socialism?
Communism, in its purest form, is stateless.

No it's not, a stateless society is anarchy. Communism still requires a state, in it's purist form there's no "leader", but that never happens.

 

[Correll]

This is true. It makes a few wealthy beyond belief and kicks the ass of the masses

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

Certainly the term "Middle Class" has changed considerably over the centuries.

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

I was not aware that Financial Security is historically common.

 

[Agit8r]

And they are why, slowly, every farmer is becoming a slave.

I can agree with you there too actually, but GMOs still have feed an insurmountable amount of starving children across the globe. More so than we could do before. And they have also kept many farmers in business, by keeping a steady stream of production despite unfavorable weather conditions that would have put them through some hard times

I think your attributing altruistic reasons where they arent really existing. If they were giving away the food I could see your point but in actuality they are just making money off starving kids. More marketing. No one stops to ask what are the results of those GMO in other countries. A population that cant feed itself and therefore dependent on the large corporations for more goods. Later down the road they are now a fresh market of consumers. Which oddly enough makes the corporations wealthier.

A. We are giving away A LOT of it
B. capitalism is a system where you increase wealth by providing a SERVICE to others at a price they deem worthy.

No someone is buying it and giving it away. The people that are benefiting financially are not giving it away.
I know what capitalism is.

So companies are not capable of charity?

And I'm not sure what the alternative would be to that. Work and give all your production away for nothing?

Altruistic enterprise? Maybe eventually all companies will operate for no profit. What would we call that..?

 

[sakinago]

A mixture of capitalism and communism is the way to go.

Well, that would be called China, at least to the extent China can rightly be seen as still aiming to arrive at communism.

Mind you, if you spend much time in China, you'll find there's a lot to like about it. I can't say much about the political process there, but living there is quite a pleasurable experience, at least I find it so. I say that only to note that living under/in an environment like one of China's enterprise zones.

And China is the modern day form of slavery.

 

[TNHarley]

IDC what anyone says, communism has MANY good concepts to it. The only thing about communism is, we have 330 million people in this country. And 7 billion on the planet.. It just couldn't work..
Plus, communism and technology don't mix..

What do you mean communism and technology dont mix. I helped set up a city that has free wifi everywhere you go.

Communism calls for banishment of currency and non essentials.
A city with free wifi isn't communism lol

A city with free wifi is definitely communism. Its a service owned by the "state" for the benefit of the people.

Ever hear of socialism?
Communism, in its purest form, is stateless.

Yes. I have heard of socialism. Thats a pretty cool system.

No communism is not stateless.
communism

"
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization oflabor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarianparty holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally sharedby the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish adictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society."

Maybe you should read B again

 

[Agit8r]

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

Certainly the term "Middle Class" has changed considerably over the centuries.

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

I was not aware that Financial Security is historically common.

At one time, the term "middle class" referred to the capitalists themselves, then it came to refer to the petit bourgeois, and now it has come to refer to a commoner who would have been called "working class" a couple of generations ago. It need hardly be said that the level of financial security has become less with each redefinition.

 

[Correll]

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

Certainly the term "Middle Class" has changed considerably over the centuries.

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

I was not aware that Financial Security is historically common.

At one time, the term "middle class" referred to the capitalists themselves, then it came to refer to the petit bourgeois, and now it has come to refer to a commoner who would have been called "working class" a couple of generations ago. It need hardly be said that the level of financial security has become less with each redefinition.

Really? A Middle Class family today, with two incomes and a house and a underfunded retirement plan has less security than a miner during the Booming Twenties, for example?

A man, one accident away from not being able to work, with no unemployment and no working wife, and no social net and no retirement fund at all? WIth his reserves being some money is a bank with no Federal Insurance?

I think that it DOES NEED "Said".

 

[Agit8r]

Certainly the term "Middle Class" has changed considerably over the centuries.

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

I was not aware that Financial Security is historically common.

At one time, the term "middle class" referred to the capitalists themselves, then it came to refer to the petit bourgeois, and now it has come to refer to a commoner who would have been called "working class" a couple of generations ago. It need hardly be said that the level of financial security has become less with each redefinition.

Really? A Middle Class family today, with two incomes and a house and a underfunded retirement plan has less security than a miner during the Booming Twenties, for example?

A man, one accident away from not being able to work, with no unemployment and no working wife, and no social net and no retirement fund at all? WIth his reserves being some money is a bank with no Federal Insurance?

I think that it DOES NEED "Said".

Your coal minor would be considered a working class.

 

[320 Years of History]

A mixture of capitalism and communism is the way to go.

Well, that would be called China, at least to the extent China can rightly be seen as still aiming to arrive at communism.

Mind you, if you spend much time in China, you'll find there's a lot to like about it. I can't say much about the political process there, but living there is quite a pleasurable experience, at least I find it so. I say that only to note that living under/in an environment like one of China's enterprise zones.

HOwever that is a artificial and temporary situation created by the enormous flow of wealth created by massive, unsustainable trade surpluses.

??? Please explain your comment. Those zones were actively created ages ago as a deliberate experiment to determine the viability of capitalism within the construct of a socialist/communist political environment.

(Not that it's relevant to this thread's discussion, but one could say that the Chinese exhibited a degree of courage that our politicians will not and have not insofar as they had evidence of the merits of "something" other than what they were doing and so they gave it a chance to see if it worked. Given their political situation, that was a huge risk to take, one that took a lot of courage.)

 

[320 Years of History]

A mixture of capitalism and communism is the way to go.

Well, that would be called China, at least to the extent China can rightly be seen as still aiming to arrive at communism.

Mind you, if you spend much time in China, you'll find there's a lot to like about it. I can't say much about the political process there, but living there is quite a pleasurable experience, at least I find it so. I say that only to note that living under/in an environment like one of China's enterprise zones.

And China is the modern day form of slavery.

I am in the PRC weekly. I have multiple clients there, and I've been to their factories, their "company towns," the big cities, etc. I have a translator who accompanies most of the time. I have had numerous conversations about working conditions in the PRC. I can assure you that what they have going on, though in some places dissimilar to what we observe in the U.S. is not at all slavery of any type. So, please, let's dispense with the inflammatory/morality metaphors, or at the very least, I ask that you reserve them for your discourse with other members.

 

[Correll]

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

I was not aware that Financial Security is historically common.

At one time, the term "middle class" referred to the capitalists themselves, then it came to refer to the petit bourgeois, and now it has come to refer to a commoner who would have been called "working class" a couple of generations ago. It need hardly be said that the level of financial security has become less with each redefinition.

Really? A Middle Class family today, with two incomes and a house and a underfunded retirement plan has less security than a miner during the Booming Twenties, for example?

A man, one accident away from not being able to work, with no unemployment and no working wife, and no social net and no retirement fund at all? WIth his reserves being some money is a bank with no Federal Insurance?

I think that it DOES NEED "Said".

Your coal minor would be considered a working class.

So, in that time who would have been "MIddle Class" and, as a group, with more security than today's?

 

[Correll]

A mixture of capitalism and communism is the way to go.

Well, that would be called China, at least to the extent China can rightly be seen as still aiming to arrive at communism.

Mind you, if you spend much time in China, you'll find there's a lot to like about it. I can't say much about the political process there, but living there is quite a pleasurable experience, at least I find it so. I say that only to note that living under/in an environment like one of China's enterprise zones.

HOwever that is a artificial and temporary situation created by the enormous flow of wealth created by massive, unsustainable trade surpluses.

??? Please explain your comment. Those zones were actively created ages ago as a deliberate experiment to determine the viability of capitalism within the construct of a socialist/communist political environment.

(Not that it's relevant to this thread's discussion, but one could say that the Chinese exhibited a degree of courage that our politicians will not and have not insofar as they had evidence of the merits of "something" other than what they were doing and so they gave it a chance to see if it worked. Given their political situation, that was a huge risk to take, one that took a lot of courage.)

What is making it work, is massive trade surpluses with a massive transfer of Wealth to China.

That is a result of an unstable situation.

Even if the West maintains it's willingness to be a Fountain of Wealth for China, long term, we will not be able to maintain such Trade Deficits, and certainly not GROW them for China's continued success.

 

[TNHarley]

IDC what anyone says, communism has MANY good concepts to it. The only thing about communism is, we have 330 million people in this country. And 7 billion on the planet.. It just couldn't work..
Plus, communism and technology don't mix..

What do you mean communism and technology dont mix. I helped set up a city that has free wifi everywhere you go.

Communism calls for banishment of currency and non essentials.
A city with free wifi isn't communism lol

A city with free wifi is definitely communism. Its a service owned by the "state" for the benefit of the people.

Ever hear of socialism?
Communism, in its purest form, is stateless.

No it's not, a stateless society is anarchy. Communism still requires a state, in it's purist form there's no "leader", but that never happens.

"Withering away of the state"

 

[westwall]

American capitalism has created a large and prosperous Middle Class.

What is called middle class today, is surprisingly hand-to-mouth. The disposable nature of the bulk of their assets does leave them quite at the mercy of the monied interests, should their plans face any setbacks.

More still, if their liabilities go underwater.

I was not aware that Financial Security is historically common.

At one time, the term "middle class" referred to the capitalists themselves, then it came to refer to the petit bourgeois, and now it has come to refer to a commoner who would have been called "working class" a couple of generations ago. It need hardly be said that the level of financial security has become less with each redefinition.

Really? A Middle Class family today, with two incomes and a house and a underfunded retirement plan has less security than a miner during the Booming Twenties, for example?

A man, one accident away from not being able to work, with no unemployment and no working wife, and no social net and no retirement fund at all? WIth his reserves being some money is a bank with no Federal Insurance?

I think that it DOES NEED "Said".

Your coal minor would be considered a working class.

Yes. THE MIDDLE CLASS IS the working class.