Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[the_IRF]

.

? Hurray, there has only been 5% of the world’s population who’ve ever Experienced Freedom ~ and we R finally getting rid of that ! Right ? ... Well maybe we are not as free as we might all like to imagine we are after all.

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject" "When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

George Carlin ~ The American Dream ~http://bit.ly/Asleep-2-Believe-It

.

 

[westwall]

Here's a real world I've known that I suspect you haven't.

In April of 2008 I lost my shelter and 99% of all my material possessions and spent the next 14 months sleeping beneath a bridge. During that time I received about $200 every month in food stamps and another $200 every month in cash.

On my own I decided to volunteer 8 hours a day five days a week at a local ADHC.
Since there were few to no jobs around for a 60 year-old unskilled male.)

Was I "working" or was I a "slacker"?

My labor wasn't going to make some rich parasite even richer, so I'm guessing a well-conditioned slave like you will say I was a welfare cheat.

Spend 14 months under a bridge, *****.

Then whine some more about the real world.

I lived for seven years in a truck when I was a kid nimrod, I KNOW what poor is, my family didn't even get your 200 a month. We had to work hard to get enough food to eat. The fact that you made it to 60 years of age with no marketable skill speaks volumes about what a pathetic individual you are. I will be 65 in a few months and I worked my ass off because i didn't like being poor. i am now very comfortable and will never have to live in a truck again.

Of course I have marketable skills. You're a whiner who expects everyone else to take care of you because your to ******* lazy to make something of yourself. You are a sad pathetic failure and that is on you! You could have done something different but you chose to be a slacker. Guess what, being a slacker has a cost, or didn't your mommy read you the story about the grasshopper and the ant?


I notice you used the term shelter. So here's my hypothesis on your life. Mom and dad took care of you for your entire life. You lived with them and partied till the sun came up, lived the life of a bohemian and generally lazed about. Then, one by one your poor (exceptionally long suffering) parents passed away. Your siblings (who actually made something of themselves) sold the house out from under you and when you weren't able to make the payments on your storage unit you lost that stuff too. That about sum up your life?

Life sucks but at some point you have to take ownership of your decisions. You have no skills at the age of 60! That means you have basically been an infant your whole life. You made the decisions that landed YOU in YOUR predicament.

Oh and next time try begging. Out here the beggers make about 2 grand a month. Or are you too lazy to do that?

Never say never, grasshopper.

You could well live long enough to look back on that truck as your golden years.
Your hypothesis on my life is as inaccurate as everything else you post, but begging seems like it's worked pretty well for you.
Did your mama read you the fable about the American Dream.

Your life seems way beyond pathetic to me.
Slave.

Yeah sure buckwheat! I live in a nice house with a great family on a good section of land. You recently lived under a bridge. How apropo, a troll living under a bridge!

 

[sparky]

So the cardboard shoes anecdotals of intentinal American true grit fortitude are trotted out , advocating social masochism in an attempt to uphold the munchenhousen system we're so proud of here

i suppose i shouldn't be surprised, human nature is akin to mother natures penchant for those species that willingly eat their young ......

 

[FA_Q2]

"Some do that very American thing and blame politicians and the state, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the unemployed were laid off by private enterprises, the vast majority of homeowners were foreclosed on by private banks, and the vast majority of the still employed have had their benefits and job security reduced by private employers.

Private enterprises that had to account for an overbearing government, insane regulations and ridiculous policies. I notice that the fact that those individuals were free to make the choices that brought them that conclusion was totally left out of the point as well. In order to attain freedom you must be free to both succeed AND fail for without one you are not free to do the other.

Your OP is asinine. Democracy (or more correctly in this case a republic as I assume you are talking about the American system) flourishes BEST when coupled with capitalism. With any other system it is almost certainly a path to disaster as all other economic models do not hinge on true freedom where capitalism requires exactly that. Capitalism is embodied in freedom as much as democracy is.

The funny thing is that you turn to the corruption that is inherent whenever a government grows to large. As government crosses into business, so too does business cross into government and the power of money is quite corrupting. The sad part is that under any other economic system the corruption is far greater, more rampant and harder to control. At least the capitalistic society allows the consumer a direct control over the situation where a socialist society gives you no such choice.

 

[editec]

The implied SOCIAL CONTRACT in a capitalistic society is that the CAPITALIST will retain a larger share of the profits that they might othersise be entitled to so that there will be pools of capital available for future investments.

HUH?

WHO the **** determines how much profit he is "entitled"

.

Excellent question.

In theory, market forces determine that.

Which doesn't entirely explain why, in the last 30 years, the amount of money retained by the top managment has risen so much in comparison to what they pay their workers.

I'm informed that, in the last 30 years or so, top managment is now making about 6 times as much as they traditionally were making (roughly from 50 times to 300 times) in comparison to their workers

 

[FA_Q2]

The implied SOCIAL CONTRACT in a capitalistic society is that the CAPITALIST will retain a larger share of the profits that they might othersise be entitled to so that there will be pools of capital available for future investments.

HUH?

WHO the **** determines how much profit he is "entitled"

.

Excellent question.

In theory, market forces determine that.

Which doesn't entirely explain why, in the last 30 years, the amount of money retained by the top managment has risen so much in comparison to what they pay their workers.

I'm informed that, in the last 30 years or so, top managment is now making about 6 times as much as they traditionally were making (roughly from 50 times to 300 times) in comparison to their workers

I have a theory on that actually. I believe that it is directly due to the size if the world. As tech gets better and better, the earth shrinks. Where you used to need entire divisions, massive rail networks, ports, huge shipping lanes and huge warehouses to sell products you can now sell things on a global scale from one location. No longer do you need to send letters deal in the real and move actual items. You can manage, pay and control entire companies from a single network. Hell, you don’t even need a physical product anymore. I have meant to start a thread on this but have not articulated myself on the subject yet. I personally believe that much of the imbalance of wealth in this nation is not necessarily a reality of policy but rather a reality of technology. The creator of Facebook has amassed a fortune over a billion dollars with no factory, shipping department or the use of any other people. Just a small employee base for the amount of profit that company is able to procure. In that context, I am not sure what government or the market can or will due.

 

[editec]

HUH?

WHO the **** determines how much profit he is "entitled"

.

Excellent question.

In theory, market forces determine that.

Which doesn't entirely explain why, in the last 30 years, the amount of money retained by the top managment has risen so much in comparison to what they pay their workers.

I'm informed that, in the last 30 years or so, top managment is now making about 6 times as much as they traditionally were making (roughly from 50 times to 300 times) in comparison to their workers

I have a theory on that actually. I believe that it is directly due to the size if the world. As tech gets better and better, the earth shrinks. Where you used to need entire divisions, massive rail networks, ports, huge shipping lanes and huge warehouses to sell products you can now sell things on a global scale from one location. No longer do you need to send letters deal in the real and move actual items. You can manage, pay and control entire companies from a single network. Hell, you don’t even need a physical product anymore. I have meant to start a thread on this but have not articulated myself on the subject yet. I personally believe that much of the imbalance of wealth in this nation is not necessarily a reality of policy but rather a reality of technology. The creator of Facebook has amassed a fortune over a billion dollars with no factory, shipping department or the use of any other people. Just a small employee base for the amount of profit that company is able to procure. In that context, I am not sure what government or the market can or will due.

Yes I also think that the rapid pace of increases in efficiencies coming at us thanks to technology plays some role in the increase in wealth distribution, including how much top managment makes in comparison to what their workers make.

I frequently note that THAT is likely to be the number one problem that will ultimately force mankind to change the SOCIAL CONTRACT,

Well either they change the social contract so that people still can have enough to live or the bastards pretend that market forces are killing the people.

But certainly technology is changing DRAMATICALLY effecting who gets the marjority of the wealth and certainly tecnoligical advances are marginalizing more and more of the population, too.

This appear to me to be a problem almost NOBODY in power has yet to acknowledge.

 

[FA_Q2]

The sad fact is that those in power are usually 20 years behind in tech. That did not matter in the old times as tech was slow. Today that is equivalent of not knowing what a cell phone is. Or, as the SCOTUS displayed in the sexting case, not understanding texting. I am not sure there is a good answer in the ‘social contract.’ All I see are ways that remove the freedom that makes us grate and turning us to a state controlled slave state. I believe very firmly in freedom. The markets will try and adjust but I think they are too slow as well. I do think some reasonable controls on imports/exports through fees would do wonders with the off shoring that is occurring. Free markets are one thing, capitulating to slave labor economies is an entirely different state of affairs. I am glad that I am not the only one that sees tech as one of the major factors in the collection of wealth though. Sometimes it is difficult for people to get over the partisanship to even acknowledge that there might be forces outside the political spectrum creating these problems even if they can still believe it will need a political (aka governmental) solution.

 

[LAfrique]

The 60's called. They want their retardery back.

Have you given a single moments thought to what a Muslim feels while watching their child die?
How would you react to watching the limbs blown off one of your children?
With a salute?

Your "service" called.
Just wanted to say Thanks.

Your hatred for the nation that gave you the freedom to be a cowardly douchebag is palpable. I suggest you move somewhere more to your liking, like Cuba.

Oh, but you won't -- because you're a coward, living under the protections of the document you want destroyed and which you vowed to defend, until you chickened out.

Coward.

Only folks I abhor with perfect hatred are hypocrites, dictators and terrorists! And all these are accurate descriptions of the US government, British government, French government, UN and NATO!

 

[daveman]

Only folks I abhor with perfect hatred are hypocrites, dictators and terrorists! And all these are accurate descriptions of the US government, British government, French government, UN and NATO!

Hush, moron.

 

[LAfrique]

And thank you, Daveman, for finally answering my question. Below is tip for handling aftermath of war - my emphasis:

1). Throw away all medications you have been put on - these addictive meds. will never help you deal with anything,

2). A blend of lettuce, beets. carrots, celery stalk and little garlic will help your system, and

3). Manage what you can and trust God to manage the rest.

Good day!

 

[georgephillip]

"Some do that very American thing and blame politicians and the state, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the unemployed were laid off by private enterprises, the vast majority of homeowners were foreclosed on by private banks, and the vast majority of the still employed have had their benefits and job security reduced by private employers.

Private enterprises that had to account for an overbearing government, insane regulations and ridiculous policies. I notice that the fact that those individuals were free to make the choices that brought them that conclusion was totally left out of the point as well. In order to attain freedom you must be free to both succeed AND fail for without one you are not free to do the other.

Your OP is asinine. Democracy (or more correctly in this case a republic as I assume you are talking about the American system) flourishes BEST when coupled with capitalism. With any other system it is almost certainly a path to disaster as all other economic models do not hinge on true freedom where capitalism requires exactly that. Capitalism is embodied in freedom as much as democracy is.

The funny thing is that you turn to the corruption that is inherent whenever a government grows to large. As government crosses into business, so too does business cross into government and the power of money is quite corrupting. The sad part is that under any other economic system the corruption is far greater, more rampant and harder to control. At least the capitalistic society allows the consumer a direct control over the situation where a socialist society gives you no such choice.

What insane regulations and ridiculous policies of an overbearing government brought down Bear Stearns, or AIG, or Lehman Brothers? Individuals on Wall Street were free enough to inflate and pop a housing/credit bubble that lead to a $13 trillion bailout, and it doesn't matter if you were in favor of the bail out or not. Obviously, a few of us are not free to fail...or maybe they're too free to fail? Maybe they're too rich to fail?

Capitalism has no use for equality.
Democracy does.
Both have vastly different beliefs about the distribution of power.

Democracy believes in one person; one vote; Capitalism doesn't.

The capitalist believes in one dollar; one vote. Only someone who grew up sucking on capital's teat would conflate the completely equal distribution of political power found in democracy with the notion that individual profit for a few should come at the expense of lost jobs, homes and pensions for many.

 

[Lars]

Suppose I don't support equality of any kind? I just simply disagree with the notion that the weak, stupid and inept of society should be the pace car for the progress of humanity.

 

[the_IRF]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to get over the partisanship to even acknowledge that there might be forces outside the political spectrum creating these problems even if they can still believe it will need a political (aka governmental) solution.

This is an impressive insight. I would suggest that these outside forces are different than i presume you are thinking of. The suggestion i would offer is that there is a hidden hand of 'Providence' working its authority according to some inscrutable calculus supporting what i will call a Big Picture agenda. The purpose, i would assert, is to foster a dimensional transition now underway. It is not the New Age thing that the Age of Aquarius so anticipated. That was the old story. What is coming, if your will permit, is the NEW STORY. Getting there will not be pretty. Watch for the growing confusion. Most would attribute it to the controller thing advancing its One World Government drill. As serves the calculus of the Big Picture, this assertion may be true, to one degree or another ... or not. All of that question as to who is to blame is irrelevant in the end, by my estimation, however. You will all have much to gripe about, as will we all. It may prove to be difficult to laugh at things as they all fall apart, but that black humor may be all that is left to us.

Our last place of refuge may well be only this:

"When you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, it rests softly inside your being with no judgment, no guilt AND no imbalance. You KNOW!"

Robert ~

.

 

[georgephillip]

Suppose I don't support equality of any kind? I just simply disagree with the notion that the weak, stupid and inept of society should be the pace car for the progress of humanity.

How should society treat the weak, stupid and inept in your opinion?

 

[Lars]

Suppose I don't support equality of any kind? I just simply disagree with the notion that the weak, stupid and inept of society should be the pace car for the progress of humanity.

How should society treat the weak, stupid and inept in your opinion?

Not subsidize their existence at the point of a gun.

 

[dblack]

How should society treat the weak, stupid and inept in your opinion?

I think we should help them out. And that's what I strive to do. I don't, however, believe that that gives me the right to take from others in order to achieve that goal.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Suppose I don't support equality of any kind? I just simply disagree with the notion that the weak, stupid and inept of society should be the pace car for the progress of humanity.

How should society treat the weak, stupid and inept in your opinion?

Define the weak, stupid and inept criteria. And who decides this criteria?

The issue with statements like this is that the sayer always assumes they'd be included within the deciding group.

ETA: or they assume they'd be included as part of the intelligencia capable of contributing

 

[georgephillip]

The Constitutional option would be for each state to decide.

But you don't much care for the Constitution, do you?

Not the parts that condoned slavery.

Oh, you mean the parts that were superseded by the 13th Amendment 146 years ago?

Moron.

Slavery evolves, You Stupid *****.

"Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006.

"One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.

1 in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars, New Study Says - New York Times

 

[georgephillip]

I lived for seven years in a truck when I was a kid nimrod, I KNOW what poor is, my family didn't even get your 200 a month. We had to work hard to get enough food to eat. The fact that you made it to 60 years of age with no marketable skill speaks volumes about what a pathetic individual you are. I will be 65 in a few months and I worked my ass off because i didn't like being poor. i am now very comfortable and will never have to live in a truck again.

Of course I have marketable skills. You're a whiner who expects everyone else to take care of you because your to ******* lazy to make something of yourself. You are a sad pathetic failure and that is on you! You could have done something different but you chose to be a slacker. Guess what, being a slacker has a cost, or didn't your mommy read you the story about the grasshopper and the ant?


I notice you used the term shelter. So here's my hypothesis on your life. Mom and dad took care of you for your entire life. You lived with them and partied till the sun came up, lived the life of a bohemian and generally lazed about. Then, one by one your poor (exceptionally long suffering) parents passed away. Your siblings (who actually made something of themselves) sold the house out from under you and when you weren't able to make the payments on your storage unit you lost that stuff too. That about sum up your life?

Life sucks but at some point you have to take ownership of your decisions. You have no skills at the age of 60! That means you have basically been an infant your whole life. You made the decisions that landed YOU in YOUR predicament.

Oh and next time try begging. Out here the beggers make about 2 grand a month. Or are you too lazy to do that?

Never say never, grasshopper.

You could well live long enough to look back on that truck as your golden years.
Your hypothesis on my life is as inaccurate as everything else you post, but begging seems like it's worked pretty well for you.
Did your mama read you the fable about the American Dream.

Your life seems way beyond pathetic to me.
Slave.

Yeah sure buckwheat! I live in a nice house with a great family on a good section of land. You recently lived under a bridge. How apropo, a troll living under a bridge!

Take it from a troll:

Big fish still eat little fish.
Even if your "nice house...on a good section of land" is paid off, the rich can still grab it by using inflation to turn every $5 bill in your country into a $1.

Don't worry too much, Slick
I know plenty of good bridges with lots of room.
Bring the family.