Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

[BuckToothMoron]

Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

Nearly 1.1 billion fewer people are living in extreme poverty than in 1990.
In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

So not only are there less people in extreme poverty but there are more
In 1990 there were 5,327,231,041 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/1990/
In 2019 there were 7,713,468,205 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2019/

Facts are there are 1.1 billion fewer people in poverty even though there is 44% more people!

The survey is a joke a I can not think of anything pertinent that can be derived from the data.

If you ask people living in places like Russia or China if they are pro capitalism, they will almost always say they are not. It’s a waste of time.

 

[Andylusion]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

There is almost nothing that supports your claim. You can say it is a critical component, but history suggests otherwise.

Regulations are consistently, and almost entirely, used by the wealthy to oppress the poor.

Now the ignorant and foolish left-wing would say that the way the rich use regulations to oppress the poor, is they get their super secret lobbyists to buy off politicians to get some magic rule written into the law that says "rich richer, poor poorer".

But that isn't the case.

Instead regulations natural.... just by their very nature, benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor.

Say you pass a regulation that is going to cost $1 Million dollars in compliance costs, on all retail stores.

Who is going to be harmed by this rule? Walmart? Or a small local store?

Of course Walmart has hundreds of billions to spend to meet the regulations. The small local store.... they close. They can't afford that cost, so they sell out. Walmart gains more customers, and becomes more wealthy, and the local store owners close, and their employees are laid off. They are poorer.

Regulations naturally.... just part of their nature... benefit the rich, and harm the poor.

Even McDonald and the minimum wage for example, is the same way. If you jack the minimum wage up to $15/hour, is that going to harm McDonald? Not really. They have the money to replace many, if not more than half their crew, over to Kiosks.

You know who doesn't? All the small independent shops. So Louis Grill will close, because he doesn't have billions to invest in kiosks to replace his cashiers. Louis Grill closes, and more people go to McDonalds. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

There is very little evidence anywhere, that any regulation has ever resulted in good for the public. Little to none.

About the only positive example, has been environmental regulations, but even then the EPA has done a terrible job. It's been local governments, and local cities, that have done the best at actually cleaning up their local areas. The EPA is filled with a bunch of idiots, who actually demanding that Mining water, have a lower arsenic level, than what is natural in the environment. A ridiculous job destroying, economy damaging regulation, that doesn't protect the environment.

I believe that you believe that.
.

it's a documented fact. Just read a book about Cargill. The author though, was an economist, instead of an activist with an axe to grind. The activists passed a bunch of regulations supposedly on Cargill. Cargill fought it, but lost.

However, after the regulations were passed, it pushed the smaller competitors out of the market, leaving farms with no choice other than Cargill. The result was even though the regulations were supposedly to curtail Cargill, they ended up shutting out the competition, that couldn't afford to meeting the regulations.

This isn't opinion. It's a documented phenomenon. Take net neutrality. Net Neutrality was being pushed by activists to hold back Comcast. After the FCC pushed all these regulations aimed supposedly at Comcast, there were a wave of mergers across the industry. My Time Warner, which I had been on for decades, was bought out by Charter Spectrum, and Comcast is larger today than it ever was in the past.

Again.. the rich got richer, and the public has fewer and fewer options for good service.

You can say "you believe that".... and if that makes you feel better about your position, knock yourself out. But the fact remains this isn't want I say... it's what the facts say. It's been documented for decades.

Regulations always benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor. They always will. Regulations cost money... naturally imposing costs on business, will benefit the people who have the money to meet the regulations, at the expense of those who don't. Always.

 

[Andylusion]

If you believe that Billionaires are in control of government, and the media, then I think you are a tad crazy.

Billionaires control nothing. Nothing. Billionaires opposed the minimum wage, and it was raised. Billionaires opposed Frank-Dodd, and it was passed. They opposed the CARD act, and it passed. They opposed the ACA, and it passed. They opposed dozens on dozens of things, and government did what it wanted anyway. They oppose the trade war now, and although it is muted, it is still going on.

There are literally dozens on dozens of super wealthy people, from millionaires to billionaires all in prison. If they are in control of everything, why are they using their control, to send themselves to prison?

They have control of nothing. Event the claims about the control over the media mean little. Trump himself proves that. The entire media was against Donald Trump, even Fox. And Trump still won. So what real control do they have?

LOL.

’Billionaires control nothing”

You can’t be serious?

Again, look at the facts. With all the media control, completely against Trump.... He still won. So do they really have "control"? Look at all the policies that the wealthy have opposed, that have all been passed by government. So do they really have "control"?

Whether I'm serious or not, doesn't matter. Look at the empirical data... does it fit your claim, or contradict? It contradicts. So the facts are, it's not true.

You can’t see facts. I can’t debate someone so entirely clueless. Sorry.

Right-winger (states undeniable facts)

Left-winger "I can't debate someone clueless"

'Facts = clueless' in left-wing world.

I’m a left winger??? LMFAO.

Well you could be one of the far right, that has a complex with "the little man can't get ahead" and conspiracy theories.

Either way, the idea that the rich control the planet... is ridiculous. I just is. All the evidence contradicts that.

 

[daveman]

When a few billionaires control most things, that’s not surprising.

So what? What does that matter to anything?

Really? If you can’t see the obvious harm in this, I can’t help you.

Venezuela has very few billionaires, and people are starving and dying.
China had very few wealthy people prior to the 1980s, and literally hundreds of thousands were living on less than a dollar a day.

Today China has tons of wealthy people, and the standard of living across the entire country is rising.

Your position is that it's better off for everyone to be poorer as long as the rich are not richer... is obviously a ideology that harms people. If you can't see that, then no one anywhere can help you.

The World Poverty Clock -- People Live in Extreme Poverty Around the World

The number is decreasing. That's capitalism.

Venuzeula? Poverty is rising. The only South American country where it is. That's socialism.

 

[Andylusion]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

A corporation would never do anything to harm us.

DuPont to pay $670 million to settle C8 lawsuits

Corporations are run by people. People make mistakes, and sometimes engage in crimes.

The difference is, when government does it... there is no one to sue.

Dzerzhinsk, Russia Most chemically polluted place on the face of the Earth. Do tell... .how much did the Soviet government pay in settlement? Oh right.... zero. Nothing. Zip.

Chernobyl, Ukraine Largest nuclear disaster in the world, which was entirely due to intentional violation of safety procedures, when operating a nuclear reactor with a known.... well known even... fatal flaw. Do tell, how much did the Soviet Government pay in settlement for the lawsuit on that? Oh right... zero. Nothing. Zip.

A capitalist system is infinity better than the alternative of government control or ownership.

Fail. No one has been arguing that. The argument is for regulations.

But you knew this.

Then I think the system we have works pretty well. Not perfectly, but if you are looking for a perfect system, no such system involving humans will have that.

However, in a system like ours, where a company does something wrong, you file a lawsuit, and you take the company to court, and they pay to clean up their mess.

That works. The fact you cited an example where it worked, seems to contradict your implied statement.

Regulations do nothing. Suing for wrong doing, is what fixes problems.

None of your endless volumes of regulations stopped the bank crisis. It didn't stop Bernie Madoff. It didn't stop Jeff Skilling.

What stopped all that, and a million more examples, was people saying something is wrong, and either investigating, or suing. In other words, law officers, and free-market concerns. Not regulators. Regulators hardly do anything ever. At best they show up AFTER the failure is already found. They lay down fees, after everything has already played out.

 

[Andylusion]

When a few billionaires control most things, that’s not surprising.

So what? What does that matter to anything?

Really? If you can’t see the obvious harm in this, I can’t help you.

Venezuela has very few billionaires, and people are starving and dying.
China had very few wealthy people prior to the 1980s, and literally hundreds of thousands were living on less than a dollar a day.

Today China has tons of wealthy people, and the standard of living across the entire country is rising.

Your position is that it's better off for everyone to be poorer as long as the rich are not richer... is obviously a ideology that harms people. If you can't see that, then no one anywhere can help you.

The World Poverty Clock -- People Live in Extreme Poverty Around the World

The number is decreasing. That's capitalism.

Venuzeula? Poverty is rising. The only South American country where it is. That's socialism.

Absolutely. Every single country that has targeted the rich, has always ended up harming the poor. Every country built on socialism, implodes. And every country built on capitalism grows.

It is universal, consistent, and undeniable.

 

[daveman]

Leftists say corporations are people running unchecked, and should be reigned in by the government.

But government is people running unchecked.

 

[pknopp]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

There is almost nothing that supports your claim. You can say it is a critical component, but history suggests otherwise.

Regulations are consistently, and almost entirely, used by the wealthy to oppress the poor.

Now the ignorant and foolish left-wing would say that the way the rich use regulations to oppress the poor, is they get their super secret lobbyists to buy off politicians to get some magic rule written into the law that says "rich richer, poor poorer".

But that isn't the case.

Instead regulations natural.... just by their very nature, benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor.

Say you pass a regulation that is going to cost $1 Million dollars in compliance costs, on all retail stores.

Who is going to be harmed by this rule? Walmart? Or a small local store?

Of course Walmart has hundreds of billions to spend to meet the regulations. The small local store.... they close. They can't afford that cost, so they sell out. Walmart gains more customers, and becomes more wealthy, and the local store owners close, and their employees are laid off. They are poorer.

Regulations naturally.... just part of their nature... benefit the rich, and harm the poor.

Even McDonald and the minimum wage for example, is the same way. If you jack the minimum wage up to $15/hour, is that going to harm McDonald? Not really. They have the money to replace many, if not more than half their crew, over to Kiosks.

You know who doesn't? All the small independent shops. So Louis Grill will close, because he doesn't have billions to invest in kiosks to replace his cashiers. Louis Grill closes, and more people go to McDonalds. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

There is very little evidence anywhere, that any regulation has ever resulted in good for the public. Little to none.

About the only positive example, has been environmental regulations, but even then the EPA has done a terrible job. It's been local governments, and local cities, that have done the best at actually cleaning up their local areas. The EPA is filled with a bunch of idiots, who actually demanding that Mining water, have a lower arsenic level, than what is natural in the environment. A ridiculous job destroying, economy damaging regulation, that doesn't protect the environment.

I believe that you believe that.
.

it's a documented fact. Just read a book about Cargill. The author though, was an economist, instead of an activist with an axe to grind. The activists passed a bunch of regulations supposedly on Cargill. Cargill fought it, but lost.

However, after the regulations were passed, it pushed the smaller competitors out of the market, leaving farms with no choice other than Cargill. The result was even though the regulations were supposedly to curtail Cargill, they ended up shutting out the competition, that couldn't afford to meeting the regulations.

This isn't opinion. It's a documented phenomenon. Take net neutrality. Net Neutrality was being pushed by activists to hold back Comcast. After the FCC pushed all these regulations aimed supposedly at Comcast, there were a wave of mergers across the industry. My Time Warner, which I had been on for decades, was bought out by Charter Spectrum, and Comcast is larger today than it ever was in the past.

Again.. the rich got richer, and the public has fewer and fewer options for good service.

You can say "you believe that".... and if that makes you feel better about your position, knock yourself out. But the fact remains this isn't want I say... it's what the facts say. It's been documented for decades.

Regulations always benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor. They always will. Regulations cost money... naturally imposing costs on business, will benefit the people who have the money to meet the regulations, at the expense of those who don't. Always.

That's only because we don't do the right thing.

Take Boeing for instance. We have the emails where they admit misleading the FAA. That's fraud. There should be criminal charges filed.

We never actually hold corporations accountable for much of anything.

That needs to stop.

 

[pknopp]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

A corporation would never do anything to harm us.

DuPont to pay $670 million to settle C8 lawsuits

Corporations are run by people. People make mistakes, and sometimes engage in crimes.

The difference is, when government does it... there is no one to sue.

Dzerzhinsk, Russia Most chemically polluted place on the face of the Earth. Do tell... .how much did the Soviet government pay in settlement? Oh right.... zero. Nothing. Zip.

Chernobyl, Ukraine Largest nuclear disaster in the world, which was entirely due to intentional violation of safety procedures, when operating a nuclear reactor with a known.... well known even... fatal flaw. Do tell, how much did the Soviet Government pay in settlement for the lawsuit on that? Oh right... zero. Nothing. Zip.

A capitalist system is infinity better than the alternative of government control or ownership.

Fail. No one has been arguing that. The argument is for regulations.

But you knew this.

Then I think the system we have works pretty well. Not perfectly, but if you are looking for a perfect system, no such system involving humans will have that.

However, in a system like ours, where a company does something wrong, you file a lawsuit, and you take the company to court, and they pay to clean up their mess.

One can't pay and bring people their lives back.

No amount of money paid out by Boeing will bring those 346 people back.

That works. The fact you cited an example where it worked, seems to contradict your implied statement.

Regulations do nothing. Suing for wrong doing, is what fixes problems.

None of your endless volumes of regulations stopped the bank crisis. It didn't stop Bernie Madoff. It didn't stop Jeff Skilling.

What stopped all that, and a million more examples, was people saying something is wrong, and either investigating, or suing. In other words, law officers, and free-market concerns. Not regulators. Regulators hardly do anything ever. At best they show up AFTER the failure is already found. They lay down fees, after everything has already played out.

It didn't work. The drinking water will always be tainted. There is no fixing that.

 

[B. Kidd]

Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

Nearly 1.1 billion fewer people are living in extreme poverty than in 1990.
In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

So not only are there less people in extreme poverty but there are more
In 1990 there were 5,327,231,041 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/1990/
In 2019 there were 7,713,468,205 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2019/

Facts are there are 1.1 billion fewer people in poverty even though there is 44% more people!

Globalists conduct global surveys.
Enuff, said.

 

[Andylusion]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

There is almost nothing that supports your claim. You can say it is a critical component, but history suggests otherwise.

Regulations are consistently, and almost entirely, used by the wealthy to oppress the poor.

Now the ignorant and foolish left-wing would say that the way the rich use regulations to oppress the poor, is they get their super secret lobbyists to buy off politicians to get some magic rule written into the law that says "rich richer, poor poorer".

But that isn't the case.

Instead regulations natural.... just by their very nature, benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor.

Say you pass a regulation that is going to cost $1 Million dollars in compliance costs, on all retail stores.

Who is going to be harmed by this rule? Walmart? Or a small local store?

Of course Walmart has hundreds of billions to spend to meet the regulations. The small local store.... they close. They can't afford that cost, so they sell out. Walmart gains more customers, and becomes more wealthy, and the local store owners close, and their employees are laid off. They are poorer.

Regulations naturally.... just part of their nature... benefit the rich, and harm the poor.

Even McDonald and the minimum wage for example, is the same way. If you jack the minimum wage up to $15/hour, is that going to harm McDonald? Not really. They have the money to replace many, if not more than half their crew, over to Kiosks.

You know who doesn't? All the small independent shops. So Louis Grill will close, because he doesn't have billions to invest in kiosks to replace his cashiers. Louis Grill closes, and more people go to McDonalds. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

There is very little evidence anywhere, that any regulation has ever resulted in good for the public. Little to none.

About the only positive example, has been environmental regulations, but even then the EPA has done a terrible job. It's been local governments, and local cities, that have done the best at actually cleaning up their local areas. The EPA is filled with a bunch of idiots, who actually demanding that Mining water, have a lower arsenic level, than what is natural in the environment. A ridiculous job destroying, economy damaging regulation, that doesn't protect the environment.

I believe that you believe that.
.

it's a documented fact. Just read a book about Cargill. The author though, was an economist, instead of an activist with an axe to grind. The activists passed a bunch of regulations supposedly on Cargill. Cargill fought it, but lost.

However, after the regulations were passed, it pushed the smaller competitors out of the market, leaving farms with no choice other than Cargill. The result was even though the regulations were supposedly to curtail Cargill, they ended up shutting out the competition, that couldn't afford to meeting the regulations.

This isn't opinion. It's a documented phenomenon. Take net neutrality. Net Neutrality was being pushed by activists to hold back Comcast. After the FCC pushed all these regulations aimed supposedly at Comcast, there were a wave of mergers across the industry. My Time Warner, which I had been on for decades, was bought out by Charter Spectrum, and Comcast is larger today than it ever was in the past.

Again.. the rich got richer, and the public has fewer and fewer options for good service.

You can say "you believe that".... and if that makes you feel better about your position, knock yourself out. But the fact remains this isn't want I say... it's what the facts say. It's been documented for decades.

Regulations always benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor. They always will. Regulations cost money... naturally imposing costs on business, will benefit the people who have the money to meet the regulations, at the expense of those who don't. Always.

That's only because we don't do the right thing.

Take Boeing for instance. We have the emails where they admit misleading the FAA. That's fraud. There should be criminal charges filed.

We never actually hold corporations accountable for much of anything.

That needs to stop.

Sure, if that is actually what happened. According to what I read, they unknowingly misled the FAA. I am assuming you are referring to the internal emails between two specific employees, who said after the fact, that they realized what they said to the FAA was not true.

Would you apply this standard to yourself? If you gave responses to a government agency, that later you discovered were not true, would you expect to be put in prison for saying things you did not know were not true?

You seem to be slapping a broad brush on something, when the evidence isn't as black and white as you claim.

If they intentionally lied to the FAA, then I'm all for prosecution. But if that isn't exactly the case, then are you destroying people's lives without clear reason?

If there is evidence that the executives at Boeing, knowingly pushed a faulty plane, and committed fraud in the process... then file the suit. I have faith that the FBI will do this.

 

[pknopp]

Sure, if that is actually what happened. According to what I read, they unknowingly misled the FAA. I am assuming you are referring to the internal emails between two specific employees, who said after the fact, that they realized what they said to the FAA was not true.

Would you apply this standard to yourself? If you gave responses to a government agency, that later you discovered were not true, would you expect to be put in prison for saying things you did not know were not true?

You seem to be slapping a broad brush on something, when the evidence isn't as black and white as you claim.

If they intentionally lied to the FAA, then I'm all for prosecution. But if that isn't exactly the case, then are you destroying people's lives without clear reason?

If there is evidence that the executives at Boeing, knowingly pushed a faulty plane, and committed fraud in the process... then file the suit. I have faith that the FBI will do this.

Some of the most concerning messages involve discussions of problems with the company's Max flight simulators in which the company employees suggest they misled regulators about potential problems with the Max.

"I still haven't been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year," one employee says in 2018, referring to an exchange of information with the FAA.

Boeing Employees Mocked FAA In Internal Messages Before 737 Max Disasters

They intentionally misled the FAA. Not only did they get people killed (which is the most damaging aspect) they also did great harm to the U.S. Other countries have noted that they no longer will take the FAA's word for something and will do follow up test themselves.

There should be criminal charges.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

Nearly 1.1 billion fewer people are living in extreme poverty than in 1990.
In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.
Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

So not only are there less people in extreme poverty but there are more
In 1990 there were 5,327,231,041 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/1990/
In 2019 there were 7,713,468,205 people... https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2019/

Facts are there are 1.1 billion fewer people in poverty even though there is 44% more people!

Capitalism is why there’s less poverty.

 

[Andylusion]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

A corporation would never do anything to harm us.

DuPont to pay $670 million to settle C8 lawsuits

Corporations are run by people. People make mistakes, and sometimes engage in crimes.

The difference is, when government does it... there is no one to sue.

Dzerzhinsk, Russia Most chemically polluted place on the face of the Earth. Do tell... .how much did the Soviet government pay in settlement? Oh right.... zero. Nothing. Zip.

Chernobyl, Ukraine Largest nuclear disaster in the world, which was entirely due to intentional violation of safety procedures, when operating a nuclear reactor with a known.... well known even... fatal flaw. Do tell, how much did the Soviet Government pay in settlement for the lawsuit on that? Oh right... zero. Nothing. Zip.

A capitalist system is infinity better than the alternative of government control or ownership.

Fail. No one has been arguing that. The argument is for regulations.

But you knew this.

Then I think the system we have works pretty well. Not perfectly, but if you are looking for a perfect system, no such system involving humans will have that.

However, in a system like ours, where a company does something wrong, you file a lawsuit, and you take the company to court, and they pay to clean up their mess.

One can't pay and bring people their lives back.

No amount of money paid out by Boeing will bring those 346 people back.

That works. The fact you cited an example where it worked, seems to contradict your implied statement.

Regulations do nothing. Suing for wrong doing, is what fixes problems.

None of your endless volumes of regulations stopped the bank crisis. It didn't stop Bernie Madoff. It didn't stop Jeff Skilling.

What stopped all that, and a million more examples, was people saying something is wrong, and either investigating, or suing. In other words, law officers, and free-market concerns. Not regulators. Regulators hardly do anything ever. At best they show up AFTER the failure is already found. They lay down fees, after everything has already played out.

It didn't work. The drinking water will always be tainted. There is no fixing that.

Again, if government was running it, we would never even know if people died from fraud, or if the water was tainted. Again, the socialist governments of the world, have done far worse, without even having a penalty applied. Even to this day, in Venezuela, with government running the food market, people are starving to death, and members of Hugo Chevaz family are directly profiting from it.... and nothing... literally nothing is going to happen.

Because government will never start an investigation to throw itself in prison. Maduro is not going to order the Bolivarian National Police, to investigate his own connections to offshore government funded food programs that siphon money to his own estate.

Again... our capitalist based system is still... by any possible comparison, better than a socialist system. No matter what faults you have with Capitalism, it is always consistently better than the alternative.

 

[pknopp]

A corporation would never do anything to harm us.

DuPont to pay $670 million to settle C8 lawsuits

Corporations are run by people. People make mistakes, and sometimes engage in crimes.

The difference is, when government does it... there is no one to sue.

Dzerzhinsk, Russia Most chemically polluted place on the face of the Earth. Do tell... .how much did the Soviet government pay in settlement? Oh right.... zero. Nothing. Zip.

Chernobyl, Ukraine Largest nuclear disaster in the world, which was entirely due to intentional violation of safety procedures, when operating a nuclear reactor with a known.... well known even... fatal flaw. Do tell, how much did the Soviet Government pay in settlement for the lawsuit on that? Oh right... zero. Nothing. Zip.

A capitalist system is infinity better than the alternative of government control or ownership.

Fail. No one has been arguing that. The argument is for regulations.

But you knew this.

Then I think the system we have works pretty well. Not perfectly, but if you are looking for a perfect system, no such system involving humans will have that.

However, in a system like ours, where a company does something wrong, you file a lawsuit, and you take the company to court, and they pay to clean up their mess.

One can't pay and bring people their lives back.

No amount of money paid out by Boeing will bring those 346 people back.

That works. The fact you cited an example where it worked, seems to contradict your implied statement.

Regulations do nothing. Suing for wrong doing, is what fixes problems.

None of your endless volumes of regulations stopped the bank crisis. It didn't stop Bernie Madoff. It didn't stop Jeff Skilling.

What stopped all that, and a million more examples, was people saying something is wrong, and either investigating, or suing. In other words, law officers, and free-market concerns. Not regulators. Regulators hardly do anything ever. At best they show up AFTER the failure is already found. They lay down fees, after everything has already played out.

It didn't work. The drinking water will always be tainted. There is no fixing that.

Again, if government was running it, we would never even know if people died from fraud, or if the water was tainted. Again, the socialist governments of the world, have done far worse, without even having a penalty applied. Even to this day, in Venezuela, with government running the food market, people are starving to death, and members of Hugo Chevaz family are directly profiting from it.... and nothing... literally nothing is going to happen.

Because government will never start an investigation to throw itself in prison. Maduro is not going to order the Bolivarian National Police, to investigate his own connections to offshore government funded food programs that siphon money to his own estate.

Again... our capitalist based system is still... by any possible comparison, better than a socialist system. No matter what faults you have with Capitalism, it is always consistently better than the alternative.

We found out that the government was torturing people.

Nobody is arguing for any pure system. Ours is NOT simply a capitalistic system. Ours is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

 

[Andylusion]

Corporations are run by people. People make mistakes, and sometimes engage in crimes.

The difference is, when government does it... there is no one to sue.

Dzerzhinsk, Russia Most chemically polluted place on the face of the Earth. Do tell... .how much did the Soviet government pay in settlement? Oh right.... zero. Nothing. Zip.

Chernobyl, Ukraine Largest nuclear disaster in the world, which was entirely due to intentional violation of safety procedures, when operating a nuclear reactor with a known.... well known even... fatal flaw. Do tell, how much did the Soviet Government pay in settlement for the lawsuit on that? Oh right... zero. Nothing. Zip.

A capitalist system is infinity better than the alternative of government control or ownership.

Fail. No one has been arguing that. The argument is for regulations.

But you knew this.

Then I think the system we have works pretty well. Not perfectly, but if you are looking for a perfect system, no such system involving humans will have that.

However, in a system like ours, where a company does something wrong, you file a lawsuit, and you take the company to court, and they pay to clean up their mess.

One can't pay and bring people their lives back.

No amount of money paid out by Boeing will bring those 346 people back.

That works. The fact you cited an example where it worked, seems to contradict your implied statement.

Regulations do nothing. Suing for wrong doing, is what fixes problems.

None of your endless volumes of regulations stopped the bank crisis. It didn't stop Bernie Madoff. It didn't stop Jeff Skilling.

What stopped all that, and a million more examples, was people saying something is wrong, and either investigating, or suing. In other words, law officers, and free-market concerns. Not regulators. Regulators hardly do anything ever. At best they show up AFTER the failure is already found. They lay down fees, after everything has already played out.

It didn't work. The drinking water will always be tainted. There is no fixing that.

Again, if government was running it, we would never even know if people died from fraud, or if the water was tainted. Again, the socialist governments of the world, have done far worse, without even having a penalty applied. Even to this day, in Venezuela, with government running the food market, people are starving to death, and members of Hugo Chevaz family are directly profiting from it.... and nothing... literally nothing is going to happen.

Because government will never start an investigation to throw itself in prison. Maduro is not going to order the Bolivarian National Police, to investigate his own connections to offshore government funded food programs that siphon money to his own estate.

Again... our capitalist based system is still... by any possible comparison, better than a socialist system. No matter what faults you have with Capitalism, it is always consistently better than the alternative.

We found out that the government was torturing people.

Nobody is arguing for any pure system. Ours is NOT simply a capitalistic system. Ours is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Saying pure isn't relevant. There is no such thing as pure anything in this world. I understand the point you are making there.

But it still isn't relevant.

We can see even within our economy, the difference between the socialized aspects, and the capitalist aspects. The difference between private pay-for-service schools, and public schools. The difference between private pay-for-service health care clinics, and the public gov-care ones. The difference between private retirement homes, and gov-retirement homes.

We can even look at more generally, the profitable retirement plans that yield good returns, and social security, which results in object poverty, and is going broke.

Over and over within our own economy, we can see capitalism works, and socialism fails.

You can see this play out in nearly every single aspect of our society.

I watched a documentary about this emergency response center, where they were moving bottled water, electric generators, medical supplies and more into surrounding warehouses, when Katrina was about to hit. Of course that center was run by Walmart, while FEMA wasn't there for months. Or how a company had hired over a 100 people specifically to fan out with GPS systems, and mapping software to locate each and every single house in the disaster zone, and give a damage assessment. They had this setup 4 days before the hurricane hit. Of course this was run by an insurance company, which was getting reports of damaged houses, before the owners even called in. Meanwhile FEMA wasn't there for almost a year.

Every single time, Capitalism wins, and socialism loses. Yeah, it's not a pure system... and it's those impure parts that are having all the problems.

 

[pknopp]

Fail. No one has been arguing that. The argument is for regulations.

But you knew this.

Then I think the system we have works pretty well. Not perfectly, but if you are looking for a perfect system, no such system involving humans will have that.

However, in a system like ours, where a company does something wrong, you file a lawsuit, and you take the company to court, and they pay to clean up their mess.

One can't pay and bring people their lives back.

No amount of money paid out by Boeing will bring those 346 people back.

That works. The fact you cited an example where it worked, seems to contradict your implied statement.

Regulations do nothing. Suing for wrong doing, is what fixes problems.

None of your endless volumes of regulations stopped the bank crisis. It didn't stop Bernie Madoff. It didn't stop Jeff Skilling.

What stopped all that, and a million more examples, was people saying something is wrong, and either investigating, or suing. In other words, law officers, and free-market concerns. Not regulators. Regulators hardly do anything ever. At best they show up AFTER the failure is already found. They lay down fees, after everything has already played out.

It didn't work. The drinking water will always be tainted. There is no fixing that.

Again, if government was running it, we would never even know if people died from fraud, or if the water was tainted. Again, the socialist governments of the world, have done far worse, without even having a penalty applied. Even to this day, in Venezuela, with government running the food market, people are starving to death, and members of Hugo Chevaz family are directly profiting from it.... and nothing... literally nothing is going to happen.

Because government will never start an investigation to throw itself in prison. Maduro is not going to order the Bolivarian National Police, to investigate his own connections to offshore government funded food programs that siphon money to his own estate.

Again... our capitalist based system is still... by any possible comparison, better than a socialist system. No matter what faults you have with Capitalism, it is always consistently better than the alternative.

We found out that the government was torturing people.

Nobody is arguing for any pure system. Ours is NOT simply a capitalistic system. Ours is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Saying pure isn't relevant. There is no such thing as pure anything in this world. I understand the point you are making there.

But it still isn't relevant.

We can see even within our economy, the difference between the socialized aspects, and the capitalist aspects. The difference between private pay-for-service schools, and public schools. The difference between private pay-for-service health care clinics, and the public gov-care ones. The difference between private retirement homes, and gov-retirement homes.

We can even look at more generally, the profitable retirement plans that yield good returns, and social security, which results in object poverty, and is going broke.

It isn't going broke. The retirement plans are only solvent because the taxpayers bailed them out.

Over and over within our own economy, we can see capitalism works, and socialism fails.

You can see this play out in nearly every single aspect of our society.

I watched a documentary about this emergency response center, where they were moving bottled water, electric generators, medical supplies and more into surrounding warehouses, when Katrina was about to hit. Of course that center was run by Walmart, while FEMA wasn't there for months. Or how a company had hired over a 100 people specifically to fan out with GPS systems, and mapping software to locate each and every single house in the disaster zone, and give a damage assessment. They had this setup 4 days before the hurricane hit. Of course this was run by an insurance company, which was getting reports of damaged houses, before the owners even called in. Meanwhile FEMA wasn't there for almost a year.

Every single time, Capitalism wins, and socialism loses. Yeah, it's not a pure system... and it's those impure parts that are having all the problems.

Bail outs.

 

[Andylusion]

Then I think the system we have works pretty well. Not perfectly, but if you are looking for a perfect system, no such system involving humans will have that.

However, in a system like ours, where a company does something wrong, you file a lawsuit, and you take the company to court, and they pay to clean up their mess.

One can't pay and bring people their lives back.

No amount of money paid out by Boeing will bring those 346 people back.

That works. The fact you cited an example where it worked, seems to contradict your implied statement.

Regulations do nothing. Suing for wrong doing, is what fixes problems.

None of your endless volumes of regulations stopped the bank crisis. It didn't stop Bernie Madoff. It didn't stop Jeff Skilling.

What stopped all that, and a million more examples, was people saying something is wrong, and either investigating, or suing. In other words, law officers, and free-market concerns. Not regulators. Regulators hardly do anything ever. At best they show up AFTER the failure is already found. They lay down fees, after everything has already played out.

It didn't work. The drinking water will always be tainted. There is no fixing that.

Again, if government was running it, we would never even know if people died from fraud, or if the water was tainted. Again, the socialist governments of the world, have done far worse, without even having a penalty applied. Even to this day, in Venezuela, with government running the food market, people are starving to death, and members of Hugo Chevaz family are directly profiting from it.... and nothing... literally nothing is going to happen.

Because government will never start an investigation to throw itself in prison. Maduro is not going to order the Bolivarian National Police, to investigate his own connections to offshore government funded food programs that siphon money to his own estate.

Again... our capitalist based system is still... by any possible comparison, better than a socialist system. No matter what faults you have with Capitalism, it is always consistently better than the alternative.

We found out that the government was torturing people.

Nobody is arguing for any pure system. Ours is NOT simply a capitalistic system. Ours is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Saying pure isn't relevant. There is no such thing as pure anything in this world. I understand the point you are making there.

But it still isn't relevant.

We can see even within our economy, the difference between the socialized aspects, and the capitalist aspects. The difference between private pay-for-service schools, and public schools. The difference between private pay-for-service health care clinics, and the public gov-care ones. The difference between private retirement homes, and gov-retirement homes.

We can even look at more generally, the profitable retirement plans that yield good returns, and social security, which results in object poverty, and is going broke.

It isn't going broke. The retirement plans are only solvent because the taxpayers bailed them out.

Over and over within our own economy, we can see capitalism works, and socialism fails.

You can see this play out in nearly every single aspect of our society.

I watched a documentary about this emergency response center, where they were moving bottled water, electric generators, medical supplies and more into surrounding warehouses, when Katrina was about to hit. Of course that center was run by Walmart, while FEMA wasn't there for months. Or how a company had hired over a 100 people specifically to fan out with GPS systems, and mapping software to locate each and every single house in the disaster zone, and give a damage assessment. They had this setup 4 days before the hurricane hit. Of course this was run by an insurance company, which was getting reports of damaged houses, before the owners even called in. Meanwhile FEMA wasn't there for almost a year.

Every single time, Capitalism wins, and socialism loses. Yeah, it's not a pure system... and it's those impure parts that are having all the problems.

Bail outs.

Ireland bailed no one out. Everyone's retirement in Ireland did not go insolvent.

That isn't even logical. Are you a moron? How does my stock in Apple computer, go insolvent if the government doesn't give money to some wealthy guy who lost money on Countrywide Financial?

Are you retarded?

Bailouts did not stop Countrywide Financial from going out of business, absorbed into BOA, and nor did bailouts allow Walmart to be profitable.

Dumb argument.

 

[pknopp]

One can't pay and bring people their lives back.

No amount of money paid out by Boeing will bring those 346 people back.

It didn't work. The drinking water will always be tainted. There is no fixing that.

Again, if government was running it, we would never even know if people died from fraud, or if the water was tainted. Again, the socialist governments of the world, have done far worse, without even having a penalty applied. Even to this day, in Venezuela, with government running the food market, people are starving to death, and members of Hugo Chevaz family are directly profiting from it.... and nothing... literally nothing is going to happen.

Because government will never start an investigation to throw itself in prison. Maduro is not going to order the Bolivarian National Police, to investigate his own connections to offshore government funded food programs that siphon money to his own estate.

Again... our capitalist based system is still... by any possible comparison, better than a socialist system. No matter what faults you have with Capitalism, it is always consistently better than the alternative.

We found out that the government was torturing people.

Nobody is arguing for any pure system. Ours is NOT simply a capitalistic system. Ours is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Saying pure isn't relevant. There is no such thing as pure anything in this world. I understand the point you are making there.

But it still isn't relevant.

We can see even within our economy, the difference between the socialized aspects, and the capitalist aspects. The difference between private pay-for-service schools, and public schools. The difference between private pay-for-service health care clinics, and the public gov-care ones. The difference between private retirement homes, and gov-retirement homes.

We can even look at more generally, the profitable retirement plans that yield good returns, and social security, which results in object poverty, and is going broke.

It isn't going broke. The retirement plans are only solvent because the taxpayers bailed them out.

Over and over within our own economy, we can see capitalism works, and socialism fails.

You can see this play out in nearly every single aspect of our society.

I watched a documentary about this emergency response center, where they were moving bottled water, electric generators, medical supplies and more into surrounding warehouses, when Katrina was about to hit. Of course that center was run by Walmart, while FEMA wasn't there for months. Or how a company had hired over a 100 people specifically to fan out with GPS systems, and mapping software to locate each and every single house in the disaster zone, and give a damage assessment. They had this setup 4 days before the hurricane hit. Of course this was run by an insurance company, which was getting reports of damaged houses, before the owners even called in. Meanwhile FEMA wasn't there for almost a year.

Every single time, Capitalism wins, and socialism loses. Yeah, it's not a pure system... and it's those impure parts that are having all the problems.

Bail outs.

Ireland bailed no one out. Everyone's retirement in Ireland did not go insolvent.

Wow!!! Really??? We were told we had to bail out the banks or it was going to be worse than the great depression. Are you saying we were lied to?

We really didn't have to bail out Wall Street?

How about 10 years and counting of QE?

That isn't even logical. Are you a moron? How does my stock in Apple computer, go insolvent if the government doesn't give money to some wealthy guy who lost money on Countrywide Financial?

You tell me. That is what the capitalists told us. Did they lie? Why was Trump insisting on more QE and lower interest rates?

Are you retarded?

Bailouts did not stop Countrywide Financial from going out of business, absorbed into BOA, and nor did bailouts allow Walmart to be profitable.

Dumb argument.

It wasn't my argument. I argued to do nothing.

 

[Andylusion]

Again, if government was running it, we would never even know if people died from fraud, or if the water was tainted. Again, the socialist governments of the world, have done far worse, without even having a penalty applied. Even to this day, in Venezuela, with government running the food market, people are starving to death, and members of Hugo Chevaz family are directly profiting from it.... and nothing... literally nothing is going to happen.

Because government will never start an investigation to throw itself in prison. Maduro is not going to order the Bolivarian National Police, to investigate his own connections to offshore government funded food programs that siphon money to his own estate.

Again... our capitalist based system is still... by any possible comparison, better than a socialist system. No matter what faults you have with Capitalism, it is always consistently better than the alternative.

We found out that the government was torturing people.

Nobody is arguing for any pure system. Ours is NOT simply a capitalistic system. Ours is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Saying pure isn't relevant. There is no such thing as pure anything in this world. I understand the point you are making there.

But it still isn't relevant.

We can see even within our economy, the difference between the socialized aspects, and the capitalist aspects. The difference between private pay-for-service schools, and public schools. The difference between private pay-for-service health care clinics, and the public gov-care ones. The difference between private retirement homes, and gov-retirement homes.

We can even look at more generally, the profitable retirement plans that yield good returns, and social security, which results in object poverty, and is going broke.

It isn't going broke. The retirement plans are only solvent because the taxpayers bailed them out.

Over and over within our own economy, we can see capitalism works, and socialism fails.

You can see this play out in nearly every single aspect of our society.

I watched a documentary about this emergency response center, where they were moving bottled water, electric generators, medical supplies and more into surrounding warehouses, when Katrina was about to hit. Of course that center was run by Walmart, while FEMA wasn't there for months. Or how a company had hired over a 100 people specifically to fan out with GPS systems, and mapping software to locate each and every single house in the disaster zone, and give a damage assessment. They had this setup 4 days before the hurricane hit. Of course this was run by an insurance company, which was getting reports of damaged houses, before the owners even called in. Meanwhile FEMA wasn't there for almost a year.

Every single time, Capitalism wins, and socialism loses. Yeah, it's not a pure system... and it's those impure parts that are having all the problems.

Bail outs.

Ireland bailed no one out. Everyone's retirement in Ireland did not go insolvent.

Wow!!! Really??? We were told we had to bail out the banks or it was going to be worse than the great depression. Are you saying we were lied to?

We really didn't have to bail out Wall Street?

How about 10 years and counting of QE?

That isn't even logical. Are you a moron? How does my stock in Apple computer, go insolvent if the government doesn't give money to some wealthy guy who lost money on Countrywide Financial?

You tell me. That is what the capitalists told us. Did they lie? Why was Trump insisting on more QE and lower interest rates?

Are you retarded?

Bailouts did not stop Countrywide Financial from going out of business, absorbed into BOA, and nor did bailouts allow Walmart to be profitable.

Dumb argument.

It wasn't my argument. I argued to do nothing.

Yeah of course not. Why would we ever need to bailout failing companies? Milton Friedman was famous for saying that capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking, and loss encourages prudence.

You can't socialize the loss, and have capitalism. There was never a need to bailout the banks. We didn't bailout Lehman Brothers, and that was the biggest private failure of the entire crash. What happened when Lehman wasn't bailed out?........ they went bankrupt. The assets were sold off, the company was closed. Life went on. Nothing bad happened.... except to the investors who foolishly gave Lehman their money, and then only got... if I remember right 60 cents on the dollars. So they still got most of their money back, and why shouldn't investors lose money when they make bad investments?

The whole thing was a bunch of politicians, buying votes with tax money. I was against it from the start. The Tea Party was a conservative movement against exactly this. Even the Conservative Caucus in the house, proposed a non-bailout alternative, that would have allowed banks to bail out each other, without tax money.

That is what the capitalists told us.

Wrong. That is what government, and business people told you. Why are you listening to business people? What did you expect that banks to say? How dumb is that.

Look, if I want to get paid to not work... and you are in government.... am I going to tell you "if you don't fund welfare and food stamps..... then I'll get a job, and have to feed my kids myself!" or am I going to tell you "Thousands will die, my children will starve, and the nation will collapse!"

Even if a CEO of a company might privately believe that Capitalism is the best system, if his company is tanking, and he's facing bankruptcy... is he going to say "Yeah if you don't bail me out.... Well I'll have to find another job, and sell my stuff" or is he going to say "If you don't bail me out, the economy will crash, and it will spell doom for the country!"

Capitalists like Milton Freidman, and economists from the Library of Economics and Liberty, the Mises Institute, and numerous other proponents of Capitalism.... none of them were saying the economy would crash if we didn't bail them out. I can't think of a respect capitalist anywhere, meaning a person who promoted Capitalism.... not one that supported the bailouts.

Only business people, in the banking system supported the bailout.... again... why would you ever believe anything someone who stands to benefit from the policy would say?

Just like if we planned to cut welfare, why would you ever go talk to a welfare recipient? Or Medicare, or Social Security, or Food stamps, or public housing?

Just absolutely stupid.