CDZ Communism, Capitalism, Fascism

Which of the major political systems is most conducive to healthy human communities?

  • fascism (nationalist)

  • communism (globalist)

  • capitalism (globalist)

  • capitalism (nationalist)


Results are only viewable after voting.

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
6,141
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?
Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).
Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.
Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.
That's like saying a school's administration is a person because there is no school administration of zero persons.

Corporations aren't persons, and here's why we should care.

A corporation as a corporation exists for the financial benefit of its shareholders. It exists for profit. A corporation is indifferent to whether it makes its profit selling a better mousetrap or it makes its profit grabbing you off the sidewalk and harvesting your organs. Corporations don't have ethics. Certainly the shareholders and directors and officers do, sometimes, and a corporation has to comply with applicable laws, of course, but the corporation itself has only one value: profit. This is why the Citizens United decision was such a flawed decision. A corporation can "vote for" policies that no civic-minded member would support individually, so our political system is perverted by private profit, or, to put it another way, our political system is corrupt. And we see the results all around us.
Correct. which is why the concept of 'limited liability' for businesses was heavily regulated by our founding 'libertarians', and only granted by state charterst o companies that served some public service , and not just to any idiot who had a filing fee. It is a subsidy, like a stop-loss position in the stock market, and it is now abused no end, nothing but a license to steal now. Shareholders have no responsibility for paying losses or debts of their 'corporate person', they can defraud with complete protection for the assets and cash they loot from their 'corporate person' and put in their pockets. which is why it's so popular with 'private equity' scams to make millions bankrupting sound companies. like GOP Hero Mitt Romney did for years. Wall Street's financial scams have sucked the life out this country, massively rewarding the unproductive and crooked at the expense of those are productive, and they hypocritically whine about the 'lack of a work ethic' in the U.S.
That has nothing to do with corporations being people, or not being people, does it?

Years ago, I was a sub-contractor, and I ran it as an LLC. I was not a corporation, nor did have a 'corporate person' ... yet I was using the limited liability function of the law. Has nothing to do with being a corporation, or being considered a person.

As for Shareholders have no responsibility for paying losses... I'm not sure how true that is, because if you remember when GM went bankrupt, the shareholders were wiped out. When a company is wiped out, they payout starting with secured creditors, then unsecured creditors, and lastly the shareholders.

If memory serves, the shareholders of GM were completely wiped out. They lost everything. My understanding was GM shares that were selling for $50 before hand, went down to zero. Or pennies.

I don't know how you can claim shareholders have no responsibility for paying loses, when they can buy thousands of dollars in stock, and end up with zero. That seems like a rather large loss to pay.

Wall Street's financial scams have sucked the life out this country


Funny, given we still have the largest economy in the world, with the highest standard of living. If you think this country has no life left in it, where is better? Denmark, where you live on a fraction of your income, in a tiny house, riding a bicycle to work because you can't afford to drive?

Where? Where is better? France, where a carpet installer was making barely more than a McDonald's employee in the US? Where they had mass protests over hiking taxes to pay for health care?

Where is better than the US, if Wall St has sucked the life out of this country?

No, that's wrong. Sorry, but you are wrong sir.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
12,734
Reaction score
1,744
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I don't see people voting for their own interests as being a bad thing, but they have to understand what their interests are and when they are being played.

I think that's a bad view, because it is impossible for people to know when they are being played. Take the minimum wage. Do you seriously think the average citizen knows, or has researched the effects of the minimum wage? Or are they just being told that corporations are evil, and people should be paid more?

How are they to know what the long term effects are?

That's the reality of why we were never supposed to be a Democracy, but rather a Representative Republic. Because people who do know, and are in government as Representatives of the public, will often vote in ways that could be counter to what the public thinks they want. Then people say "Corporations own the government!" because people who don't know, assume the reason our representatives voted contrary to what you think you want, you assume it must be because of corporate money, when it could just be what you want was actually something bad.

I see that play out all the time.
I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

I think your attitude has led, at least in part, on the widespread feeling that government is the enemy and doesn't have their interests at heart.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,727
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
In a fascist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. It is explicitly nationalist.

In a communist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the party and the international proletariat. It is explicitly globalist.

In a capitalist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the market and the rich. It is implicitly globalist, but, through state intervention, can have nationalist characteristics imposed.

It is clear that an important political dividing line is globalist vs nationalist.
The one that best adheres to the ideals of their Constitution.
 

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
5,184
Reaction score
879
Points
140
Give me one reason that over the long haul why we have not raised the minimum wage? if they had been raised 50 cents or a dollar every 2 years business could have easily absorbed the cost. We know that the cost of everything has gone up, why so slow to cover the working person who lives on salary?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,727
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Give me one reason that over the long haul why we have not raised the minimum wage? if they had been raised 50 cents or a dollar every 2 years business could have easily absorbed the cost. We know that the cost of everything has gone up, why so slow to cover the working person who lives on salary?
Right wingers don't believe in equity or equality.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
6,141
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I don't see people voting for their own interests as being a bad thing, but they have to understand what their interests are and when they are being played.

I think that's a bad view, because it is impossible for people to know when they are being played. Take the minimum wage. Do you seriously think the average citizen knows, or has researched the effects of the minimum wage? Or are they just being told that corporations are evil, and people should be paid more?

How are they to know what the long term effects are?

That's the reality of why we were never supposed to be a Democracy, but rather a Representative Republic. Because people who do know, and are in government as Representatives of the public, will often vote in ways that could be counter to what the public thinks they want. Then people say "Corporations own the government!" because people who don't know, assume the reason our representatives voted contrary to what you think you want, you assume it must be because of corporate money, when it could just be what you want was actually something bad.

I see that play out all the time.
I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

I think your attitude has led, at least in part, on the widespread feeling that government is the enemy and doesn't have their interests at heart.
Well we know that as a fact. Government does not have our best interest at heart.

Did we learn nothing from the Soviet Union, the Nazis in Germany, the Japanese Emperor, Iran, Russia today, Venezuela, Greece, Argentina, Spain, and on and on. The list is endless.

Go read some of Thomas Sowell's memoirs of being in the Department of Labor.

He talks about how the big issue at the time, was the minimum wage law in Puerto Rico. So he was seeing that as the minimum wage went up, employment went down. Now keep in mind, that this time in Thomas Sowell's life, he was a Marxist.

There were two competing theories, one that the minimum wage causes unemployment, and the other that hurricanes had come through Puerto Rico at the time, and wiped out the sugar cane fields, thus employment went down.

Sowell finally figured out, all they needed to find the answer, was to find out how much sugar cane was in the fields before and after the hurricanes. He was motivated by the truth, and what policy is best for the public. Well he told everyone, and instead of congratulating him on finding a way to determine the truth, they had looks of shock and horror.

See the problem was, 1/3rd of the Department of Labor's budget was enforcing the minimum wage. Hundreds of cushy union jobs with luxurious benefits at tax payer expense would be lost if the minimum wage was repealed. The entire government agency was not incompetent at finding out if the minimum wage was beneficial... they were directly materially motivated to not find out. They didn't want to know if the minimum wage was bad. It was in their best interest to keep it.


See government has it's own motivations that have nothing to do with the public good. They are interested in what is best for them.

I'll give you one more example.


I'll recap the video. The lady and her husband, hit some super difficult times, and for a short time thought to go on welfare.

When she went to the welfare office, they told her.... get a divorce, so you can get more money. But not only that, after their business started picking up, she returned to the welfare office, to cancel it, and not only did they try very hard to talk her out of canceling it, but they simply didn't.... she kept getting welfare checks after telling them they didn't need them.

Now why would a welfare office, do everything in their power to give out tax payer money, even when the people themselves who were receiving it, openly said they didn't want it?

Because again, the welfare office only exists to give out money. That's how they get a larger budget, is by spending all the money and saying they need more. If they have money left over, what happens? Government cuts their budget, and people with cushy government union jobs, end up having to get real jobs.

Here in ohio, we had a ridiculous example happen, that I'll never forget. So many people stopped using welfare, that the welfare agency actually spent money.... actually spent tax payer money to advertise on TV, to get people to sign up for welfare.

Again why? Because government agencies have their own incentives. They want first and foremost, to protect their own jobs, and grow their own budgets. And if that means handing out money to people who don't qualify or don't even want it... then that is what they do.

I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

Yes, we are very very very different from other Americans. By far. 1/3rd of Americans don't even know who the governor of their state is. And ONLY 1/3rd of Americans can name their representative in Congress.

Honestly, do you really think the average American is looking up research on any topic, let alone the minimum wage? And that's after all the Fight for 15 stuff. No. The answer to that question is no.

Are we different than the norm? Yes. Yes we are. By a wide margin. The fact you are even here talking about this, is proof of that. This forum has about 30 to 50 active posters. You see the same names over and over. The country has 330 Million people. Where is everyone?

They don't care. Or even if they do care, it's not enough to talk and discuss topics, and learn about the issues.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,727
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
He talks about how the big issue at the time, was the minimum wage law in Puerto Rico. So he was seeing that as the minimum wage went up, employment went down. Now keep in mind, that this time in Thomas Sowell's life, he was a Marxist.
In the short run. Corporate downsizing is worse and done only for the bottom line.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
12,734
Reaction score
1,744
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

I think your attitude has led, at least in part, on the widespread feeling that government is the enemy and doesn't have their interests at heart.
Well we know that as a fact. Government does not have our best interest at heart.
That's a pretty broad statement. So neither Trump nor Biden have our best interest at heart?

I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

Yes, we are very very very different from other Americans. By far. 1/3rd of Americans don't even know who the governor of their state is. And ONLY 1/3rd of Americans can name their representative in Congress.

Honestly, do you really think the average American is looking up research on any topic, let alone the minimum wage? And that's after all the Fight for 15 stuff. No. The answer to that question is no.

Are we different than the norm? Yes. Yes we are. By a wide margin. The fact you are even here talking about this, is proof of that. This forum has about 30 to 50 active posters. You see the same names over and over. The country has 330 Million people. Where is everyone?

They don't care. Or even if they do care, it's not enough to talk and discuss topics, and learn about the issues.
I have a number of friends, smarter and better informed than I am and they are not on USMB. I think you need to give people more credit. At least I hope so.

What is Wisdom of Crowds?
Wisdom of crowds is the idea that large groups of people are collectively smarter than individual experts when it comes to problem-solving, decision making, innovating and predicting. The wisdom of crowds concept was popularized by James Surowiecki in his 2004 book, The Wisdom of Crowds, which shows how large groups have made superior decisions in pop culture, psychology, biology, behavioral economics, and other fields.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
656
Reaction score
330
Points
883
That has nothing to do with corporations being people, or not being people, does it?
Yes it does according to the legal code, as in being ttreated as just like a real person re rights. It also makes the company or corporation the one that gets hit with fines and debt collection actions and bankruptcy rulings, not the owners' private wealth or the shareholders.


As for Shareholders have no responsibility for paying losses... I'm not sure how true that is, because if you remember when GM went bankrupt, the shareholders were wiped out. When a company is wiped out, they payout starting with secured creditors, then unsecured creditors, and lastly the shareholders.

If memory serves, the shareholders of GM were completely wiped out. They lost everything. My understanding was GM shares that were selling for $50 before hand, went down to zero. Or pennies.

I don't know how you can claim shareholders have no responsibility for paying loses, when they can buy thousands of dollars in stock, and end up with zero. That seems like a rather large loss to pay.
You obvious;ly don't have a clue what 'limitrd liability' means; if a company owes more than its assets, the shareholders aren't forced to pay what the company owes out of their own pocket, on top of what the company was liquidated for. They get to whtever they took out of the company without any responsilbity for the debts their company assumed. They;re protected by law, since the comapny or corporation is considered a separate 'person'. It's just a scam that keeps owners from having to pay up for their bad decisions.

Wall Street's financial scams have sucked the life out this country
Funny, given we still have the largest economy in the world, with the highest standard of living. If you think this country has no life left in it, where is better? Denmark, where you live on a fraction of your income, in a tiny house, riding a bicycle to work because you can't afford to drive?

Where? Where is better? France, where a carpet installer was making barely more than a McDonald's employee in the US? Where they had mass protests over hiking taxes to pay for health care?

Where is better than the US, if Wall St has sucked the life out of this country?

No, that's wrong. Sorry, but you are wrong sir.
All that has gone away; there is no social mobility left, except downward; the financial sector accounts for over 80% of all profits now, wages are about half what they were in buying power in the 1970's, and all the 'booms' since then have been nothing but debt bubbles not productivity. The Roman Senators thought they were living in 'Good Times' too, since they sucked up nearly all the wealth of a vast empire and put in thier own pockets. The other 95% didn't think the economy was so great. The 'middle class' is no longer large, and over 85% of job creation is part time service industry crap jobs.

You're just deluding yourself. That's why the 'Right' has lost the elections; nobody buys the bullshit ideology any more.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
6,141
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

I think your attitude has led, at least in part, on the widespread feeling that government is the enemy and doesn't have their interests at heart.
Well we know that as a fact. Government does not have our best interest at heart.
That's a pretty broad statement. So neither Trump nor Biden have our best interest at heart?

I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

Yes, we are very very very different from other Americans. By far. 1/3rd of Americans don't even know who the governor of their state is. And ONLY 1/3rd of Americans can name their representative in Congress.

Honestly, do you really think the average American is looking up research on any topic, let alone the minimum wage? And that's after all the Fight for 15 stuff. No. The answer to that question is no.

Are we different than the norm? Yes. Yes we are. By a wide margin. The fact you are even here talking about this, is proof of that. This forum has about 30 to 50 active posters. You see the same names over and over. The country has 330 Million people. Where is everyone?

They don't care. Or even if they do care, it's not enough to talk and discuss topics, and learn about the issues.
I have a number of friends, smarter and better informed than I am and they are not on USMB. I think you need to give people more credit. At least I hope so.

What is Wisdom of Crowds?
Wisdom of crowds is the idea that large groups of people are collectively smarter than individual experts when it comes to problem-solving, decision making, innovating and predicting. The wisdom of crowds concept was popularized by James Surowiecki in his 2004 book, The Wisdom of Crowds, which shows how large groups have made superior decisions in pop culture, psychology, biology, behavioral economics, and other fields.
There's a difference in what the book you cited is talking about, and what I'm talking about.

The book is talking about the how individuals in a group are going to know more about a given topic than the few in office.

I agree with that. For example the book cites that engineers were ignored, while the management at NASA was pushing for a launch, which ultimately killed the crew of the Columbia.

But here's the key. Those were engineers, working on the project they were most trained and knowledgeable.

Do you think that the wider public had more knowledge than the NASA management? Not likely.

If you asked your friends who you claim are more knowledgeable than yourself, if they knew the problems of the Columbia, that they would understand, or have any relevant knowledge of it? Likely not.

Once you leave the area of knowledge you have, people are easily swayed by the loudest and most charismatic, over those who are knowledgeable.

If you doubt that, just ask yourself how Bernie Sanders has as much influence as he does, when he was kicked out of his own commune, has multiple luxury properties, and didn't pay his own staff $15/hours. Can you explain that? The guy is a walking talking billboard of contradictions to his exposed ideology. He had property, while decrying property rights. Has millions will decrying millionaires. Has engaged in capitalism, while decrying capitalism. Decries low pay, and promotes $15/hour minimum wage, while not paying his own people $15/hour wages.

Yet he still have massive influence across this entire country.

And you want me to have more faith in the American public? Based on what?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
6,141
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
That has nothing to do with corporations being people, or not being people, does it?
Yes it does according to the legal code, as in being ttreated as just like a real person re rights. It also makes the company or corporation the one that gets hit with fines and debt collection actions and bankruptcy rulings, not the owners' private wealth or the shareholders.


As for Shareholders have no responsibility for paying losses... I'm not sure how true that is, because if you remember when GM went bankrupt, the shareholders were wiped out. When a company is wiped out, they payout starting with secured creditors, then unsecured creditors, and lastly the shareholders.

If memory serves, the shareholders of GM were completely wiped out. They lost everything. My understanding was GM shares that were selling for $50 before hand, went down to zero. Or pennies.

I don't know how you can claim shareholders have no responsibility for paying loses, when they can buy thousands of dollars in stock, and end up with zero. That seems like a rather large loss to pay.
You obvious;ly don't have a clue what 'limitrd liability' means; if a company owes more than its assets, the shareholders aren't forced to pay what the company owes out of their own pocket, on top of what the company was liquidated for. They get to whtever they took out of the company without any responsilbity for the debts their company assumed. They;re protected by law, since the comapny or corporation is considered a separate 'person'. It's just a scam that keeps owners from having to pay up for their bad decisions.

Wall Street's financial scams have sucked the life out this country
Funny, given we still have the largest economy in the world, with the highest standard of living. If you think this country has no life left in it, where is better? Denmark, where you live on a fraction of your income, in a tiny house, riding a bicycle to work because you can't afford to drive?

Where? Where is better? France, where a carpet installer was making barely more than a McDonald's employee in the US? Where they had mass protests over hiking taxes to pay for health care?

Where is better than the US, if Wall St has sucked the life out of this country?

No, that's wrong. Sorry, but you are wrong sir.
All that has gone away; there is no social mobility left, except downward; the financial sector accounts for over 80% of all profits now, wages are about half what they were in buying power in the 1970's, and all the 'booms' since then have been nothing but debt bubbles not productivity. The Roman Senators thought they were living in 'Good Times' too, since they sucked up nearly all the wealth of a vast empire and put in thier own pockets. The other 95% didn't think the economy was so great. The 'middle class' is no longer large, and over 85% of job creation is part time service industry crap jobs.

You're just deluding yourself. That's why the 'Right' has lost the elections; nobody buys the bullshit ideology any more.
Yes it does according to the legal code, as in being ttreated as just like a real person re rights. It also makes the company or corporation the one that gets hit with fines and debt collection actions and bankruptcy rulings, not the owners' private wealth or the shareholders.
You obvious;ly don't have a clue what 'limitrd liability' means; if a company owes more than its assets, the shareholders aren't forced to pay what the company owes out of their own pocket, on top of what the company was liquidated for. They get to whtever they took out of the company without any responsilbity for the debts their company assumed. They;re protected by law, since the comapny or corporation is considered a separate 'person'. It's just a scam that keeps owners from having to pay up for their bad decisions.


Again, I ran an LLC. And it was just me. Corporations are not treated any differently than any small business run in an LLC.

Now if you want to try and ban limited liability, good luck with that. But it has nothing to do with Corporations being people, or not being people. Again, I was in an LLC of one person, just me. And I used the limited liability function of the law.

By the way, you really need to think through the implications of what you are suggesting.

You realize who the shareholders are? Do you understand who the shareholders of major corporations are? They are you and me. They are people with 401Ks, and IRAs, and Pension funds, and Annuities.

Do you really want your 70 year old grand mother, to lose her entire retirement, her house, her car, and everything she owns, because she bought $200 in shares in Walmart?

Because that is in fact, what you are saying.

In fact, Walmart is an excellent example, because all employees at Walmart (last I checked) are automatically enrolled in the Walmart employee stock purchase program. I know at my company, you were enrolled automatically.

Do you want every single employee of walmart, including the high school and college students and retirees that work there, to have everything they owned wiped out entirely, because Walmart got sued or owed money?

Really? That's your great idea? Good luck with that. I think I'll openly be against that plan. So should everyone. Because that's a terrible idea.

All that has gone away; there is no social mobility left, except downward

Oh good heavens.... Lord have mercy on the stupid....

Really? there is no social mobility left? None? Really? All downward? No one anywhere can move up?

Four examples. Just off the top of my head, in the moment.....

1. Guy came here from Bangladesh. He rented a room at my house, because he was waiting for his wife to come and join him. The guy started off working at a Pizza shop. Promoted to manager. Got a degree in computer programming. Worked a dozens short-term contract positions. Two years ago, a company in Chicago called him up, and offered him $120K a year, plus 2 months vacation a year, so that he and his wife can visit family in Bangladesh.

No social mobility whatsoever. Only down.

2. Had a long time friend who worked at Walmart. Used their tuition reimbursement program to go to college over a period of six years. Today she is a civil engineer, and only had a few thousand in debt, because the reimbursement program paid most of the cost, and she cash-flowed most of the rest from working.

No social mobility at all. Can't move up at all.

3. Had a co-worker tile his kitchen, with stone tile. Had some neighbors over for a social gathering. Week later, a neighbor called him up, and asked him if he could tile their kitchen. Soon he had a dozen people asking him to tile their house. A month later, a contractor for Wendy's called him, and asked if he would tile floors for Wendy's. Soon he was making more money working Friday and Saturday, than he was working 40 hours Monday through Friday at his regular job. He's now running his own business tiling floors.

Can't climb the income ladder at all. Nope, no mobility.

4. Me. I failed out of college. Didn't drop out. Failed out. Failed three times in a row. No skills. No trade skills. No degrees. No training. My first job was part time at McDonald's, making $4.25 an hour. Last year, I was making $19/hour.

Boy you are soooooooo right. No social mobility at all. None whatsoever.

That explains why people in this country that make $32,000 a year, are the top 1% of income earners world wide! That explains why people by the millions come to this country every single year! It's because they are doomed when they get here.

Bonus example: Phil Robertson was a drunk, that worked at a bar. He started whittling duck callers, and now has a multi-million dollar company. No social mobility. That's why.

Bonus example 2: Brian Scudamore, was in high school, and bought a $900 pickup truck, and started hauling junk. Now 1-800-GOT-JUNK is a multi-million dollar international company.

Let me put it to you flat out..... Where you are, and what situation you are in, is 90% the results of the choices you have made. If you are broke, its because you made choices that made you broke. If you are poor, it's because you made choices that made you poor.

Get a wife. Nearly all those examples involve men who had woman in their life that supported them.
Not a girlfriend.... a wife.

Then get a job, or get career, or start your own business.


Pursuit of Happiness, is the true story of Chris Gardner a black man who was abandoned by his father, deserted by his then wife, and he had a son, and he was homeless. He was actually homeless.

Today he's the CEO of his own company, and worth hundreds of millions.

I'll say it again. Where you are.... and the situation you are in.... is due to your own choices. If you are finding yourself only going backwards, and earning less year over year, then *YOU* are doing something wrong. Either you are not operating with honesty and integrity, or you are not doing your job with a good work ethic, or you are making some other bad choices.

But in this country, a country based on freedom and the ability to make your own choices... if you are having bad results, it's because of your bad choices. (obviously I don't mean if you get cancer or something out of your control, but that's a tiny fraction of people).
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
6,141
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
That's a pretty broad statement. So neither Trump nor Biden have our best interest at heart?
I just wanted to respond to that in a little more detail.

I honestly believe that anyone who thinks that a politicians in truly interested in their personal best interest.... is an idiot. To be kind and friendly, and pull my punches a little.... an idiot of the highest order.

Are there politicians that actually have the best interest of the public at heart? Maybe... maybe one in a hundred perhaps.

But if you think that Trump and Biden have your best interest at heart, then you haven't been paying any attention to either of them.

Take Trump. Trump did a ton of good things, that I support, and why I happily voted for him in 2020. But, if you think Trump has my personal best interest at heart, you would be crazy, and I'd be crazy to believe that.

Take for example after the Florida high school shooting, Trump came out in favor of gun control. Then after getting advice from his advisors that explained his core supporters were not in favor of that, he changed positions.


Why? Because he thought that's what everyone wanted, and what would benefit him as a politician. Then he realize it wasn't, and changed positions to what would benefit him.

All politicians do this. All of them. Every single one, with perhaps the exception of Ronald Reagan.

And again, even if Trump knew what was best for the public, it may not be what was best politically.

Take for example the Trade War. There is literally a thousand years of evidence that more trade is good, and less trade is bad. There is not single example in all human history where protectionism has a good result, or free trade has a bad result. Contrary to what Unions claim, on a national level, Trade is always a net benefit to the entire country.

So why did Trump support it? Because it gained him votes, or he doesn't know any better, or both.

And the same is true of Biden. I had to laugh when Biden recently announced that there was absolutely nothing at all that he could do, to change the course of the pandemic.

How ironic given how we were told that the only reason the pandemic was still going on, was because of evil Trump, and if only we had someone else in office.

Did Biden know he couldn't do anything to stop the Pandemic before hand? Of course. So why did he keep saying otherwise until he got into office? For the good of the country? Or for the good of Biden?

And here's the real kicker to this discussion.

Let us even pretend, using a drug induced high, that Biden, or Trump, really do have our best interests at heart.

It doesn't really matter. Presidents are only in office for 4 to 8 years, and then they are gone.

We would need a dictator, or royal king, to stay in office for decades on end, to really have one person make a huge difference.

And the reason why that is, is because it's the people in the bureaucracies, that have been there for life, that how have their best interests ahead of what is good for the country.

Like I said before, Thomas Sowell's request to find out how much sugar cane was in the fields, so that he could find out how effective the minimum wage was.... that request was never answered. The government agencies that depended on the minimum wage to justify their jobs, and their Department of Labor budgets, was never going to allow the truth of the minimum wage laws to be determined.

Doesn't matter if it was good or bad for the public, nor did it matter who was president. The department would fight that to the death, before for them it did mean death. Death of their cushy government jobs and union benefits, and careers living on the tax payers who have to actually work for a living.

So even if I granted that XX politician really did care.... it doesn't matter to the bureaucrats whose life long benefits and careers depend on what is best for the department, over what is best for the government.

Which by the way... this is what cracks me up with people who fly off the handle on who is president. Every single election, people keep screaming that 'this is the most important election in all human history!'.... and then it isn't. The same bureaucrats are there running the government, regardless of who is president.

Not saying it doesn't matter at all... but we should be more skeptical of life long government employees, than who is going to be replaced in under a decade no matter what.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
12,734
Reaction score
1,744
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

I think your attitude has led, at least in part, on the widespread feeling that government is the enemy and doesn't have their interests at heart.
Well we know that as a fact. Government does not have our best interest at heart.
That's a pretty broad statement. So neither Trump nor Biden have our best interest at heart?

I'm not an economist but I think I know the short and long term effects of a minimum wage. I'm betting you do too. The facts are just a Google away and opinions are everywhere. Are we any better or different from other Americans?

Yes, we are very very very different from other Americans. By far. 1/3rd of Americans don't even know who the governor of their state is. And ONLY 1/3rd of Americans can name their representative in Congress.

Honestly, do you really think the average American is looking up research on any topic, let alone the minimum wage? And that's after all the Fight for 15 stuff. No. The answer to that question is no.

Are we different than the norm? Yes. Yes we are. By a wide margin. The fact you are even here talking about this, is proof of that. This forum has about 30 to 50 active posters. You see the same names over and over. The country has 330 Million people. Where is everyone?

They don't care. Or even if they do care, it's not enough to talk and discuss topics, and learn about the issues.
I have a number of friends, smarter and better informed than I am and they are not on USMB. I think you need to give people more credit. At least I hope so.

What is Wisdom of Crowds?
Wisdom of crowds is the idea that large groups of people are collectively smarter than individual experts when it comes to problem-solving, decision making, innovating and predicting. The wisdom of crowds concept was popularized by James Surowiecki in his 2004 book, The Wisdom of Crowds, which shows how large groups have made superior decisions in pop culture, psychology, biology, behavioral economics, and other fields.
There's a difference in what the book you cited is talking about, and what I'm talking about.

The book is talking about the how individuals in a group are going to know more about a given topic than the few in office.

I agree with that. For example the book cites that engineers were ignored, while the management at NASA was pushing for a launch, which ultimately killed the crew of the Columbia.

But here's the key. Those were engineers, working on the project they were most trained and knowledgeable.

Do you think that the wider public had more knowledge than the NASA management? Not likely.

If you asked your friends who you claim are more knowledgeable than yourself, if they knew the problems of the Columbia, that they would understand, or have any relevant knowledge of it? Likely not.

Once you leave the area of knowledge you have, people are easily swayed by the loudest and most charismatic, over those who are knowledgeable.

If you doubt that, just ask yourself how Bernie Sanders has as much influence as he does, when he was kicked out of his own commune, has multiple luxury properties, and didn't pay his own staff $15/hours. Can you explain that? The guy is a walking talking billboard of contradictions to his exposed ideology. He had property, while decrying property rights. Has millions will decrying millionaires. Has engaged in capitalism, while decrying capitalism. Decries low pay, and promotes $15/hour minimum wage, while not paying his own people $15/hour wages.

Yet he still have massive influence across this entire country.

And you want me to have more faith in the American public? Based on what?
We both should have more faith in our fellow man. Here is another Wisdom of the Crowds example which requires no engineering skill whatsoever:
One of the most cited examples of the Wisdom of Crowds involves a group’s collective ability to accurately guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. For each individual, however, predicting the number of jelly beans is very hard. People do their best to estimate, but it’s not surprising that most are way off. What is surprising is that when you have a large enough group, the average answer tends to be highly accurate – even more accurate than the best guesser in the group.​
 

Bernhard

Active Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
133
Reaction score
113
Points
43
Location
Berlin, Germany
None of them.

Communism and capitalism look nice on the paper, but when put to reality, they create nothing but suffering and hardship.

And fascism is no acceptable alternative for anybody who has a moral compass that considers total subjugation of the individual under the state, up to mass murder, a wrong thing to do.

As for an economic system, I'd say you need a good mix of capitalism and socialism: The problems start when either market or state have too much power. But the only thing that can keep the state in check is a free market, and the only thing that can keep untamed free markets in check, is the state.

So have a free, capitalist economy with private property, but balance it with social safety nets and some wealth redistribution, to ease the extremes of accumulation of unchecked power of a few wealthy on one side, and mass poverty on the other ... within reasonable limits.
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
64,846
Reaction score
24,459
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
In a fascist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. It is explicitly nationalist.

In a communist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the party and the international proletariat. It is explicitly globalist.

In a capitalist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the market and the rich. It is implicitly globalist, but, through state intervention, can have nationalist characteristics imposed.

It is clear that an important political dividing line is globalist vs nationalist.
For starters the OP is a lie. In America the State is not supreme but subservient to the People.
Now for the question.
Which system has the least poverty and allows anyone to move from the bottom economic rung to the top?
Only Capitalism.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top