Can There Be Too Much Capitalism?

[PoliticalChic]

You are talking about what has happened to our poor country under Reagan tax rates of giveaway to the rich. The worst inequality and upward mobility ever anywhere is no coincidence. Brainwashed functional moron. The final solution is fair capitalism with a good safety net like they have and every other modern country. We are the richest country in the world and we screw over everyone but the rich. You are the chump of the greedy idiot brainwashing GOP mega rich.

"...our poor country under Reagan tax rates of giveaway to the rich..."

The usual nonsense one sees from whining Marxists.


While the ranks of the wealthy quickly multiplied, middle-class investors also entered the stock market in rapidly growing numbers. The creation by Congress in 1978 of the 401(k) tax-deferred retirement plan provided new incentives for workers to invest their savings in the stock market (often through mutual funds) rather than relying on company-funded pensions for retirement. The 401(k) led to a kind of democratization of Wall Street, as the percentage of American households owning some stake in the stock market—either directly or through mutual funds—shot quickly from 15.9% in 1983 to 29.6% in 1989.23 Thus the great bull market of the 1980s created more wealth, for more American families, than any previous boom in history.

Investment Company Institute, "Equity Ownership in America, 2005," http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_05_equity_owners.pdf,

The Reagan Era Learning Guide: Citations

Shmoop’s sources cited for The Reagan Era

www.shmoop.com

Yup.....finest President is a century.

 

[otto105]

1.Well…what are the choices?
There was one of the earliest economies, where folks traded the only thing they had….themselves. That was slavery.

We moved on to feudalism…”peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.”

The growth of freedom, individualism, gave rise to capitalism.



2. “The results were inescapable: nearly everywhere on the planet men and women lived longer, ate better, enjoyed more leisure, and had access to resources and delights that previously had been reserved for the very rich and powerful, or more commonly, had been utterly unknown.” Joel Mokyr, “A Culture of Growth: Origins of the Modern Economy” http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10835.pdf



As politics is part of every endeavor, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the growth of government, and taxation, what we call Progressivism, is a return to earlier times, inching towards slavery.




3. But, as per the title….has capitalism been over-extended? Outlived its usefulness???? Is there too much??

Only in the same respect as a famous man said about winning: “We’re gonna’ win so much that you will say, please, please, Mr. President….stop!! We’re tired of winning!!!!!”
Should we be tired of capitalism????


No….there isn’t too much capitalism, wealth, or profit. But too many have seen this as the be-all-and-end-all, and forgotten this:
1 Timothy 6:10 to be: For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.





4.As a result, we have President who has succumbed to that love, to the point of selling out his home nation. And there are many such elites who would bind themselves to alien nations and alien ideology, if it provided wealth.


“…Trump saw decoupling the United States from China as a way to dismantle the oligarchy that hated him and sent American jobs abroad, he couldn’t follow through on the vision. After correctly identifying the sources of corruption in our elite, the reasons for the impoverishment of the middle classes, and the threats foreign and domestic to our peace, …

… China was the source of the China Class’ power, the novel coronavirus coming out of Wuhan became the platform for its coup de grace. So Americans became prey to an anti-democratic elite that used the coronavirus to demoralize them; lay waste to small businesses; leave them vulnerable to rioters who are free to steal, burn, and kill; keep their children from school and the dying from the last embrace of their loved ones; and desecrate American history, culture, and society; and defame the country as systemically racist in order to furnish the predicate for why ordinary Americans in fact deserved the hell that the elite’s private and public sector proxies had already prepared for them.

For nearly a year, American officials have purposefully laid waste to our economy and society for the sole purpose of arrogating more power to themselves while the Chinese economy has gained on America’s. China’s lockdowns had nothing to do with the difference in outcomes. Lockdowns are not public health measures to reduce the spread of a virus. They are political instruments, which is why Democratic Party officials who put their constituents under repeated lengthy lockdowns, …” The Thirty Tyrants



Too much capitalism????

No…..too little integrity.

Seems that someone is beating to death irony.

 

[Ringo]

The cycle of blood and corruption in capitalism

 

[PoliticalChic]

The cycle of blood and corruption in capitalism

The outright slaughter of socialism:

"Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury.
The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.

a. R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left



If you worship Marx, and Marx worshipped Satan...


Complete the Transitive Law.....

 

[Ringo]

The outright slaughter of socialism:

"Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury.

pathetic. Are you still chewing the lying shit of capitalist propaganda? Then you should know that the main theses of anti-Soviet propaganda were born in the bowels of Dr. Goebbels ' ministry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

pathetic. Are you still chewing the lying shit of capitalist propaganda? Then you should know that the main theses of anti-Soviet propaganda were born in the bowels of Dr. Goebbels ' ministry.

No vulgarity....no matter how deeply I've wounded you.


For your continuing education.....there is not 1° of difference between Nazism and Communism.

Both stem from Marx.


http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==









"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." Telling the Soviet story


A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925.(Article provided in the film)



Wise up, you moron.

 

[Ringo]

A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article .... Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925.(Article provided in the film)

And here are the words of another American, a politician and a diplomat:

US Ambassador to the USSR in 1937-39 Joseph Davis on Communism and Nazism and their fundamental difference 06.08.12

"(July 7, 1941)

My friend Lindbergh surprised me by saying that he prefers Nazism to communism. In general, making such a choice is a desperate thing, but the difference between these two subjects is too great. Both Germany and Russia are totalitarian states. Both of them are realistic. Both of them apply strict and ruthless methods. However, there is one significant difference, which can be shown as follows. If Marx, Lenin or Stalin had been Christian believers, and if one tried to place the communist experiment carried out in Russia within the framework of the dogmas of the Catholic or Protestant Church, the result would have been declared the greatest achievement of Christianity in the entire history of mankind in its striving for humanity and the embodiment of Christian commandments in the life of society.
The fact is that the Christian religion can be combined with communist principles without committing much violence against its economic and political goals, the main of which is the "brotherhood of all people". Having conducted a similar test with regard to Nazism, we will find that it is impossible to combine the two ideologies. It is impossible to impose the principle of Christian ideology on the Nazi philosophy without destroying the political basis of the state. Fascist philosophy creates a state that is actually based on the denial of the altruistic principles of Christianity. For the Nazis, love, charity, justice and Christian values are just manifestations of weakness and decline if they contradict the needs of the state.

This is the whole difference - the communist Soviet state can act with Christianity as the basis for achieving the ultimate goal - the universal brotherhood of people. The Communists allow the state to die off as a person improves, while the ideal of the Nazis is exactly the opposite - the state is above all."

 

[PoliticalChic]

And here are the words of another American, a politician and a diplomat:

US Ambassador to the USSR in 1937-39 Joseph Davis on Communism and Nazism and their fundamental difference 06.08.12

"(July 7, 1941)

My friend Lindbergh surprised me by saying that he prefers Nazism to communism. In general, making such a choice is a desperate thing, but the difference between these two subjects is too great. Both Germany and Russia are totalitarian states. Both of them are realistic. Both of them apply strict and ruthless methods. However, there is one significant difference, which can be shown as follows. If Marx, Lenin or Stalin had been Christian believers, and if one tried to place the communist experiment carried out in Russia within the framework of the dogmas of the Catholic or Protestant Church, the result would have been declared the greatest achievement of Christianity in the entire history of mankind in its striving for humanity and the embodiment of Christian commandments in the life of society.
The fact is that the Christian religion can be combined with communist principles without committing much violence against its economic and political goals, the main of which is the "brotherhood of all people". Having conducted a similar test with regard to Nazism, we will find that it is impossible to combine the two ideologies. It is impossible to impose the principle of Christian ideology on the Nazi philosophy without destroying the political basis of the state. Fascist philosophy creates a state that is actually based on the denial of the altruistic principles of Christianity. For the Nazis, love, charity, justice and Christian values are just manifestations of weakness and decline if they contradict the needs of the state.

This is the whole difference - the communist Soviet state can act with Christianity as the basis for achieving the ultimate goal - the universal brotherhood of people. The Communists allow the state to die off as a person improves, while the ideal of the Nazis is exactly the opposite - the state is above all."

No, you dunce.....Davies.....not Davis.

1. Davies replaced Bullett, who told FDR that he was a fool to believe the Soviets.
Ambassador Bullitt soon recognized the truth. Every 'pledge,' 'promise,' and 'assurance," that the Soviets had tricked Roosevelt into believing- if 'believing' is the accurate explanation- on war debt, on the treatment of American nationals and property in the USSR, on religious freedom, on subversion in the United States, and, of course, on fomenting revolution in the United States, was worthless. As dense a Liberal as Bullitt was, he saw Stalin convene the world's Communist parties, including the American Communist Party (CPUSA), in the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, 1935. CPUSA leaders Earl Browder and William Foster took leading roles. So much for the pledges. West, "American Betrayal," p. 197.

Working for FDR, Davies would never say anything that was negative about communism.

Davies assessed:

Communism holds no serious threat to the United States. Friendly relations in the future may be of great general value.

1. Joseph Davies (April 20, 1938) Memorandum, Declassified, 1980.

2. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.



3. .…as Martin Amis put it, 'Bolshevism was exportable and produced near-identical results elsewhere. Nazism could not be duplicated. Compared to it, the other fascist states were simply amateurish' (Amis, 2002, p. 91).

This makes communism more dangerous than Nazism.

Nazism was based on blood and nationalism, so, could not be duplicated in nations like America, which is made up of so very many nations.

Two forms of totalitarian socialism.



You must be a government school grad, and as such, have never read a book.





One more: this explains the lies you've swallowed.

4. "American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

That's four books I named that you haven't read.

Don't be stupid your whole life.......

.....take a day off.

 

[Ringo]

Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialist elements of financial capital ... Fascism is not a supra-class power and not the power of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over financial capital. Fascism is the power of financial capital itself. This is an organization of terrorist reprisals against the working class and the revolutionary part of the peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in foreign policy is chauvinism in the grossest form, cultivating zoological hatred of other peoples. (c) Georgy Dimitrov

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialist elements of financial capital ... Fascism is not a supra-class power and not the power of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over financial capital. Fascism is the power of financial capital itself. This is an organization of terrorist reprisals against the working class and the revolutionary part of the peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in foreign policy is chauvinism in the grossest form, cultivating zoological hatred of other peoples. (c) Georgy Dimitrov

Are you ready to admit you had no clue who Davies,.....not 'Davis'....was???

Are you ready to admit you never read the books I quoted?

Are you ready to admit you never read any books?




Let's slap you around a little more:


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
“free markets, free voices, free people”

,
Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

The Democrats check every one of those boxes.



They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialist elements of financial capital ... Fascism is not a supra-class power and not the power of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over financial capital. Fascism is the power of financial capital itself. This is an organization of terrorist reprisals against the working class and the revolutionary part of the peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in foreign policy is chauvinism in the grossest form, cultivating zoological hatred of other peoples. (c) Georgy Dimitrov

All of these are under one big tent: Fascism, Nazism, Communism, The Democrat Party.


MayDay is the Litmus Test:


Government school, an arm of the Left, attempts to pretend that there is even a 1° of difference between Communism and Nazism, or Fascism.

There isn't.

Those three and these three....Liberalism, Progressivism, and Socialism, all have the very same collectivist, statist aim for society.

The celebration of May Day gives a clue.

On this day in 1889, May Day—traditionally a celebration of the return of spring, marked by dancing around a Maypole—was first observed as a labour holiday, designated as such by the International Socialist Congress.
Britannica.com




One of those interesting facts that helps verify that Hitler was as much a Leftist as Stalin is that Hitler made MayDay his Nazi holiday, too.

The Nazis sought to gain support of workers by declaring May Day, a day celebrated by organized labour, to be a paid holiday and held celebrations on 1 May 1933 to honour German workers Life and Death in the Third ReichFirst Edition Edition
byPeter Fritzsche p. 45


The regime also insisted through propaganda that all Germans take part in the May Day celebrations in the hope that this would help break down class hostility between workers and burghers.[13]Songs in praise of labour and workers were played by state radio throughout May Day as well as an airshow in Berlin and fireworks.[13]Hitler spoke of workers as patriots who had built Germany's industrial strength and had honourably served in the war and claimed that they had been oppressed undereconomic liberalism.[14]Berliner Morgenpostthat had been strongly associated with the political left in the past praised the regime's May Day celebrations.[14]
Volksgemeinschaft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Here's Stalin's version....






Stalin helped Mussolini set up his May Day celebration...

'The youngest prime minister in Italian history,....Mussolini was showered with accolades from sundry quarters.... Stalin supplied Mussolini with the plans of the May Day parades in Red Square,to help him polish up his Fascist pageants....He conquered Ethiopia, madea Pact of Steel with Germany, introduced anti-Jewish measures in 1938,came into the war as Hitler's very junior partner,..."
The Mystery of Fascism by David Ramsay Steele



Socialist, fascists, Nazis, communists......Leftist all.
As are Progressives and Modern Liberals.




And you've bought all the propaganda like it was on sale.


Sucker.

 

[Ringo]

Socialist, fascists, Nazis, communists......Leftist all.
As are Progressives and Modern Liberals.

A person who equates fascism and communism is either a fool or a scoundrel, I have no desire to discuss with either one or the other.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A person who equates fascism and communism is either a fool or a scoundrel, I have no desire to discuss with either one or the other.

Enough of a spanking, huh?

I guess it is time for you to slither back under the rock.

 

[otto105]

Enough of a spanking, huh?

I guess it is time for you to slither back under the rock.

In russia they don't have a word for communism since Putin....

 

[task0778]

Fascism/Socialism/Communism/Progressivism/etc. is about gov't control, the more the better. Over each citizen, business, industry, school, church, everything. That is NOT a right-wing goal, that is exactly what the left-wing wants, we see it everyday in the politics and programs coming from the Left. At the end of the day that is what it all boil down to: do you make your own decisions or does the gov't do it for you.

Tying this back to capitalism, therein you get to decide what to spend your money on, what job or career you want, and you have the freedoms to say and do whatever you want to subject to a few limitations. But under any collectivist state including fascism, you don't get to make those decisions and those freedoms are gone. Does anyone really believe that under any other system other than capitalism we would have the same innovation and creativity? Look at how much the world changed up until about 250 years ago. Then look at how things are now, the difference is truly stunning and the ONLY factor in that change that mattered is that the world became capitalist. If anyone does not believe, let them cite their argument or STFU.

 

[otto105]

Fascism/Socialism/Communism/Progressivism/etc. is about gov't control, the more the better. Over each citizen, business, industry, school, church, everything. That is NOT a right-wing goal, that is exactly what the left-wing wants, we see it everyday in the politics and programs coming from the Left. At the end of the day that is what it all boil down to: do you make your own decisions or does the gov't do it for you.

Tying this back to capitalism, therein you get to decide what to spend your money on, what job or career you want, and you have the freedoms to say and do whatever you want to subject to a few limitations. But under any collectivist state including fascism, you don't get to make those decisions and those freedoms are gone. Does anyone really believe that under any other system other than capitalism we would have the same innovation and creativity? Look at how much the world changed up until about 250 years ago. Then look at how things are now, the difference is truly stunning and the ONLY factor in that change that mattered is that the world became capitalist. If anyone does not believe, let them cite their argument or STFU.

Fascism is a form of rightwing authoritarianism dipshit. Fascism controls all aspects of it's citizens lives and industry at the will of the leaders.

For bonus points explain Progressivism....or the differences between communist and socialist states.


Because it's clear you don't know.

 

[Ringo]

The capitalist dead end is clearly expressed in the" lunar programs " of Musk and Bezos. Musk won the tender, Bezos flooded it with lawsuits. They are shouted to them - Join forces, you idiots, for humanity! In response, the fat cats bury their horns even further into the ground.
Greed and hubris are the soul of Сapital

 

[PoliticalChic]

The capitalist dead end is clearly expressed in the" lunar programs " of Musk and Bezos. Musk won the tender, Bezos flooded it with lawsuits. They are shouted to them - Join forces, you idiots, for humanity! In response, the fat cats bury their horns even further into the ground.
Greed and hubris are the soul of Сapital

You're back for another lesson???

Excellent.


From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

404 Not Found

Unfortunately, the page you requested was not found. Please make sure the URL was typed in correctly. It is also possible that the page you are

www.hillsdale.edu

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2007_05_Imprimis.pdf

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.



2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”



3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.



4. For Babeuf, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”



5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”



6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.




Once, the rich rode in carriages, the rest of the people walked.
Today both ride in cars, whether or not they are all the same model.
Due to capitalism.


“Nobody, not even Bill Gates, lives like Marie Antoinette. And nobody in the US lives like her peasants. “ Cochrane's Questions About Inequality - Econlib

 

[task0778]

Fascism is a form of rightwing authoritarianism dipshit. Fascism controls all aspects of it's citizens lives and industry at the will of the leaders.

For bonus points explain Progressivism....or the differences between communist and socialist states.


Because it's clear you don't know.

Fascism controls all aspects of it's citizens lives and industry at the will of the leaders. It sure as hell does, dipshit. You don't see that as gov't control, the more the better (in their view)? You don't see the democrats as the party of bigger gov't and more control? You don't see the authoritarianism in Biden's latest edict via the Dept of Labor to mandate a COVID shot? You don't see him trying to wrest away power from the states and their governors? “I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way”? Dude, that's authoritarianism.

The Right is the opposite in that they want less spending, less gov't control, and less gov't intervention in the private sector. We can argue all day about the morality and efficacy of these issues, but the undeniable fact is that the Left is far more authoritarian that the Right. Spare me the bullshit from 100 years ago, this is today, here and now. And it's abundantly clear by your own definition: Fascism controls all aspects of it's citizens lives and industry at the will of the leaders. That is a precise description of today's democratic party.

 

[Ringo]

Countries are unable to solve world problems together!
According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteris: "The pandemic has demonstrated a collective inability to unite and make joint decisions for the common good."
And what do you make out of this, Antonio?
Capitalism is dooming humanity.