Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There are no serfs in capitalism.
Capitalism is merely the natural law of economics. It's what happens when the government doesn't oppress men and keep them from being their own masters.
And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??
Capitalism is not a system of government. It is an economic system. Capitalism does not run up a public debt. By definition, it cannot. It is not public. Capitalism is private enterprise. Any debt run up by Capitalism is private debt.
Your assertion is corrupt at its base. Any logic piled on top of that is suspect or just plain wrong.
Capitalism didn't cause the debt. The government did. And your "solution" is MORE government.
Idiot.
Government is an entity, it does nothing, imbecile. It is those that control to do something, and those are corporation dumbass, the ones who control ever fool Representative we have. Got that Davey??
So when the Big 0 put his boot on the throat of BP, he was putting his own boot on his own throat?
You just have to admire the man's flexibility.
America worked best when there was a blending of capitalism and socialism. People who were able to make lots of money invested in middle class America.
Today, you have two political parties, one that is 90% white and blindly follows a greedy leadership that sends American jobs overseas for a buck, wants to turn America into a cesspool for a buck and will pass tax breaks for people who have so many bucks, they will never be able to spend it all.
Then you have the other political party that is made up of everyone else and is so diverse, they are constantly hamstrung by incessant attacks from the other party and by their inability to present a unified front.
One side is united and unknowingly anti American.
If you are against the middle class, you are anti American. If you vote people into office that hurt the country, then you are anti American. Call yourself patriotic, but if you vote people into office and the very first thing they do is hold the middle class hostage to bring hundreds of billions to 1.7% of America, then you are most definitely "anti American".
The other side is simply too fractured.
The fact that the Republican Party is 90% white makes it the "natural leader" of the country, not because they are white, but because they are "unified" in a way the other party isn't.
But the Republican Party has simply become too stupid. Seriously, how can the base accept their leadership apologizing to BP? The fiasco that is Iraq? Another 1.1 trillion added to the deficit and the reason for that? To give money to millionaires and billionaires? And still, they defend the "indefensible". The Democrats have too much to lose standing against the Republicans.
Simply the FACT that the Republican leadership is whining about having to work close to Christmas when they wanted to deny unemployment benefits to millions of Americans JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS simply to give money to "Scrooge" that Scrooge didn't even ask for. It's so over the top is a disgrace. Deep down, the Republican base has to feel spit on. If they don't, then they are truly stupid.
America worked best when there was a blending of capitalism and socialism. People who were able to make lots of money invested in middle class America.
Today, you have two political parties, one that is 90% white and blindly follows a greedy leadership that sends American jobs overseas for a buck, wants to turn America into a cesspool for a buck and will pass tax breaks for people who have so many bucks, they will never be able to spend it all.
Then you have the other political party that is made up of everyone else and is so diverse, they are constantly hamstrung by incessant attacks from the other party and by their inability to present a unified front.
One side is united and unknowingly anti American.
If you are against the middle class, you are anti American. If you vote people into office that hurt the country, then you are anti American. Call yourself patriotic, but if you vote people into office and the very first thing they do is hold the middle class hostage to bring hundreds of billions to 1.7% of America, then you are most definitely "anti American".
The other side is simply too fractured.
The fact that the Republican Party is 90% white makes it the "natural leader" of the country, not because they are white, but because they are "unified" in a way the other party isn't.
But the Republican Party has simply become too stupid. Seriously, how can the base accept their leadership apologizing to BP? The fiasco that is Iraq? Another 1.1 trillion added to the deficit and the reason for that? To give money to millionaires and billionaires? And still, they defend the "indefensible". The Democrats have too much to lose standing against the Republicans.
Simply the FACT that the Republican leadership is whining about having to work close to Christmas when they wanted to deny unemployment benefits to millions of Americans JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS simply to give money to "Scrooge" that Scrooge didn't even ask for. It's so over the top is a disgrace. Deep down, the Republican base has to feel spit on. If they don't, then they are truly stupid.
And another excellent set of points made by the class warfare proponent.
Oh good grief.....
Soggy... this asshole needs to seek some serious mental help
You know, when I read this kinda stuff, I really ask myself, do they really believe this? If so, what the hell happened to somebody to hold such a perverse worldview? Are they just very young and naive? Are they as you say, ill? Are they just not very bright?
It is very disappointing to see people who live in a country which is truly the great success story of all time, that has in a mere couple centuries taken itself and the world to such heights, brought prosperity to so many, and have hold this view that somehow, it must all be thrown out the window in favor of some collectivist, Utopian communal society.
I just don't get it.
Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion, so stop talking nonsense. It has murdered millions in its Empirical wars, polluted the Earth, and starved the people it was to serve. And while you ignore it, socialism does work, and is shown to you over & over & over again, so you must be blind if you missed it. I am sure I could point out a country today and you would ask the same question tomorrow.
This debate has to do with what capitalism is capable of doing to the serfs, which is move you back to #1. if left unabated.
You mean socialist country's never had a war?(Germany), Polluted anything?(China),starved people?(China). I guess if it works so good over and over it's because none of them last too long. And WHAT country's that were so successful did you mention? Oh that's right, NONE. GOD BLESS AMERICA. Best country EVER. Only problem we have is too many Socialist Politicians.
Write these on your forehead...................
GDP per capita, (Nominal) in USD.
1 Luxembourg 111,240 (Christian Social people's party)
2 Norway 94,353 (Socialist)
3 Switzerland 64,015 (Socialist)
4 Ireland 63,185 (Independant - ?)
5 Denmark 62,332 (Socialist)
6 Iceland 52,557 (Socialist)
7 Netherlands 52,321 (Socialist)
8 Sweden 52,057 (Socialist)
9 Finland 51,062 (Socialist)
10 Austria 49,900 (Socialist)
11 Australia 47,498 (Socialist)
12 United States 46,716 (NOT SOCIALIST!!!!)
(World Bank)
Soggy... this asshole needs to seek some serious mental help
You know, when I read this kinda stuff, I really ask myself, do they really believe this? If so, what the hell happened to somebody to hold such a perverse worldview? Are they just very young and naive? Are they as you say, ill? Are they just not very bright?
It is very disappointing to see people who live in a country which is truly the great success story of all time, that has in a mere couple centuries taken itself and the world to such heights, brought prosperity to so many, and have hold this view that somehow, it must all be thrown out the window in favor of some collectivist, Utopian communal society.
I just don't get it.
"It is very disappointing to see people who live in a country which is truly the great success story of all time,"
I'll buy this.
"that has in a mere couple centuries taken itself and the world to such heights,"
can't argue with that.
" brought prosperity to so many, "
or so FEW?
" brought prosperity to so many, "
while 10% are unemployed?
" brought prosperity to so many, "
yet millions of people are worried about HIGH TAXES and HIGH EXPENSES and NOT ABLE TO SAVE MONEY for the future and retirement.....
"and have hold this view that somehow, it must all be thrown out the window in favor of some collectivist, Utopian communal society."
1. we already have forms of socialism throughout society; schools, roads, social security, insurance. (welfare...)
i imagine that SOME of these you support?
2. logically speaking;
a. since the CONTROLLERS of BUSINESS (and the country) have the right to own as much money as they can
and
b. since NOBODY has a RIGHT to a JOB
then
c. it is POSSIBLE that in a DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM a SMALL percentage of the population could conceivably end up with ALL the money, property, power) while the preponderance of the population could be unemployed (thanks to automation, computers, robotics, machinery)
and homeless......
there are some people (liberals) who would like to set laws/regulations NOW to protect the vast en-employed in the future
we hope that when you lose YOUR job because of computers or robotics
you will be able to live in a warm home with plenty to eat
we would HATE to see YOU eating out of the garbage cans of the elite
BUT if you asked nicely, your might find out I want a democratic socialist society where government controls the means of production, where the voters decide what is acceptable to their control. I don't subscribe to Marxism or fascism. I want a system that favors the citizens, not the corporate Elite. The Euro state is close to what I wish for America.
I do have a mustache.
Sounds like what George Orwell was for
Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?
The people who own the property used.
Where have you seen a successful Socialist program?
I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.
You know, when I read this kinda stuff, I really ask myself, do they really believe this? If so, what the hell happened to somebody to hold such a perverse worldview? Are they just very young and naive? Are they as you say, ill? Are they just not very bright?
It is very disappointing to see people who live in a country which is truly the great success story of all time, that has in a mere couple centuries taken itself and the world to such heights, brought prosperity to so many, and have hold this view that somehow, it must all be thrown out the window in favor of some collectivist, Utopian communal society.
I just don't get it.
"It is very disappointing to see people who live in a country which is truly the great success story of all time,"
I'll buy this.
"that has in a mere couple centuries taken itself and the world to such heights,"
can't argue with that.
" brought prosperity to so many, "
or so FEW?
" brought prosperity to so many, "
while 10% are unemployed?
" brought prosperity to so many, "
yet millions of people are worried about HIGH TAXES and HIGH EXPENSES and NOT ABLE TO SAVE MONEY for the future and retirement.....
"and have hold this view that somehow, it must all be thrown out the window in favor of some collectivist, Utopian communal society."
1. we already have forms of socialism throughout society; schools, roads, social security, insurance. (welfare...)
i imagine that SOME of these you support?
2. logically speaking;
a. since the CONTROLLERS of BUSINESS (and the country) have the right to own as much money as they can
and
b. since NOBODY has a RIGHT to a JOB
then
c. it is POSSIBLE that in a DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM a SMALL percentage of the population could conceivably end up with ALL the money, property, power) while the preponderance of the population could be unemployed (thanks to automation, computers, robotics, machinery)
and homeless......
there are some people (liberals) who would like to set laws/regulations NOW to protect the vast en-employed in the future
we hope that when you lose YOUR job because of computers or robotics
you will be able to live in a warm home with plenty to eat
we would HATE to see YOU eating out of the garbage cans of the elite
Wow. Just wow. I won't waste any more time on this... buh bye.
I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.
Interesting, so you are saying that the more laws we have the more socialist we are...that would mean the Rule of Law is actually the Rule of Socialism in your opinion.
Let's take an example. Suppose a wealthy person takes their Bush Jr tax cut and invests it in a pill factory in China. Because there is no FDA regulating the manufacturing of medicine in China, nothing stops the pill factory from making product that actually makes people sick. Now we pass laws that further regulates the manufacture of medicine in foreign countries to protect consumers.
And you call that socialism?
Tell me something, when we pass laws against criminals, is that really socialism in your opinion?
Labor in this country is independent and proud. It has not to ask the patronage of capital, but capital solicits the aid of labor.The full quote is even better.I believe in an essentially free market, however I also believe that
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
President Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 3, 1861
Which came first?
The fruits of labor or the fruits of capital?
Obviously labor has sustained humankind since day one.
Capital, which is merely a tool, has only existed for about 6,000 years or so.
So, which is absolutely essential for mankind and which is merely a convenient tool?
I think the answer to that question is rather obvious.
Labor creates wealth.
Capital merely represents the fruits of the wealth that were created by labor.
And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??
Capitalism is not a system of government. It is an economic system. Capitalism does not run up a public debt. By definition, it cannot. It is not public. Capitalism is private enterprise. Any debt run up by Capitalism is private debt.
Your assertion is corrupt at its base. Any logic piled on top of that is suspect or just plain wrong.
There is no logic... this is what he wants to believe. In actuality, what he espouses is exactly what has failed. The progressive/Marxist dream has piled trillions in unsustainable obligations on a system that perversely, has shifted the burden of payment onto the backs of the despised producers. He either refuses to see this, or, is just plain ole not too bright.
Sounds like what George Orwell was for
Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?
My GOD are people really this ignorant?
Run do not walk to you closest library and READ 1984.
I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.
Interesting, so you are saying that the more laws we have the more socialist we are...that would mean the Rule of Law is actually the Rule of Socialism in your opinion.
Let's take an example. Suppose a wealthy person takes their Bush Jr tax cut and invests it in a pill factory in China. Because there is no FDA regulating the manufacturing of medicine in China, nothing stops the pill factory from making product that actually makes people sick. Now we pass laws that further regulates the manufacture of medicine in foreign countries to protect consumers.
And you call that socialism?
Tell me something, when we pass laws against criminals, is that really socialism in your opinion?
One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.
1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.
2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.
3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.
As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com
I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.
"Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social." Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest."
This has turned into a really silly argument over a false paradigm. Both socialism and capitalism are failed systems and they are NOT the only two choices.
Capitalism can never exist because the moment it did capitalists would immediately seek to destroy it. Capitalism relies on free markets, a kind of level playing field, no monopolies, a kind of morality, all of which are directly at odds with excessive greed.
The very incentive that causes capitalism to work turns around and destroys it right away. You end up with subsidized industry, rewards for excessive risk, monopolies, deferment of costs to others, abuse of power, corruption, etc.
Socialism suffers from a poor incentive system offering too many rewards for non productivity, while failing to adequately reward innovation and enterprise.
A marriage of these two, nor one of these or the other is the answer. The answer is something else.
Imagine a world full of self employed laborers who owned their own means of production or at least had the opportunity to do so, imagine if incentives were skewed to reward cooperative self employment coaltions, imagine if you couldn't charter a corporation unless it was owned by it's members.....
Dare to think outside the box that imprisons you. The answer is outside the box, not within it.
