Is Capitalism the Cause or the Solution to the Financial Crisis?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

'anarcho-capitalism' is stupidity, as pure free-market capitalism is implied in an anarchic state.

Does it make you a liar now that you've gone back on your word "not to deal with a liar?"

Let the record show that Kevin has admitted to being a liar

At any rate, capitalism is not implied in anarchism. I'd suggest you look up anarcho-communism.

let it also show that he can't comprehend that anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive and that advocating any system at all means you do not advocate anarchy.

No wonder paperview stopped bothering with him

Yeah, no wonder.

 

[The Rabbi]

'anarcho-capitalism' is stupidity, as pure free-market capitalism is implied in an anarchic state.

Does it make you a liar now that you've gone back on your word "not to deal with a liar?"

Let the record show that Kevin has admitted to being a liar

At any rate, capitalism is not implied in anarchism. I'd suggest you look up anarcho-communism.

let it also show that he can't comprehend that anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive and that advocating any system at all means you do not advocate anarchy.

No wonder paperview stopped bothering with him

Well, no. Go look at the writings of Emma Goldstein or Alexander Berkman. They were pretty clear that some anarchists were also communists and some were not.
Libertarianism ("Libtardism" from here on) is simply a second cousin to anarchism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Fathers,who would have been appalled.

 

[johnrocks]

solution

 

[Paulie]

Unbridled capitalism is the problem

capitalism must be restrained if the masses aren't to be bent over by the big corporations

capitalism cannot sustain itself without borrowing from socialistic thought and idealism

Regulation of capitalism that eliminates corruption and greed while enhancing and improving competion is essential to restoring American prosperity.

So is education of the masses that are involved in the market.

Don't be so quick to blame capitalism because you were just too uneducated to not get beaten by it.

 

[Paulie]

Libertarianism ("Libtardism" from here on) is simply a second cousin to anarchism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Fathers,who would have been appalled.

Libertarianism has so many sub divisions of it that it's impossible to merely take the word itself, and pidgeon-hole it as being only ONE ideology.

There are libertarians who would just prefer to see the constitution referred to in construct. There are libertarians who would prefer anarcho-capitalism. There are libertarians that would just prefer a free market that is simply devoid of the Fed. And yes, there are libertarians who would prefer to just see no government at all.

Taking ANY ideology and lumping it into one specific mindset is ******* retarded. You pretend like you read books, but almost every post you make disproves that.

I'm a libertarian who would prefer to see the constitution interpreted in literal construct. I have no problems with any laws that are expressly authorized in the constitution itself. How is that anywhere CLOSE to being like anarchy???

Dumb ass. How often can one poster embarrass himself before he finally decides it's time to move on?

Reagan himself, who I'm sure you're a fan of, had great things to say about libertarianism. He compared it to conservatism in various ways.

But you're too uneducated to know that, obviously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Paulie, I am for capitalism, the type of government regulation that helped the greatest generation build the greatest middle class through the first of 1970s that the world has ever seen. The great middle class has deteriorated in the last thirty years since the beginning of Reaganism and deregulation.

 

[Paulie]

Jake, this is a bit long winded, but please read through.

Paulie, I am for capitalism, the type of government regulation that helped the greatest generation build the greatest middle class through the first of 1970s that the world has ever seen. The great middle class has deteriorated in the last thirty years since the beginning of Reaganism and deregulation.

No, it has deteriorated because we've changed from people who want to be informed and involved in the important issues, to people who want to get fat sitting in front of the TV watching useless, mindless crap.

You'll notice that as technology has advanced, intelligence has decreased.

You say 30 years ago was when the middle class started to deteriorate. Well 30 years ago was when the TV started becoming a mainstay in just about every American household. Now instead of just having a magazine or newspaper to read for entertainment while still having to move around and learn about things that mattered, you could just sit down and let the Honeymooners entertain the shit out of you all day long. Who needs financial education when you can just sit on your fat ass and laugh all day?

You're right, capitalism needs regulation. The constitution authorizes interstate commerce regulation. The EXTENT of such is the real argument when it comes to that.

But you can't discount the fact that America has just simply become a country of IDIOTS over the last 30 years, and the TV plays a major role.

Merely blaming regulation, or lackthereof, is a crutch with which to relieve oneself from taking personal responsibility.

Capitalism hardly ever beats me. Why? Because I educate myself on money and I know how to benefit from the system.

Jake, most people can't make that claim. I think that's our BIGGEST problem.

You'd have thought with the advent of the internet things would have gotten better, but they've actually gotten WORSE. Because the TV doesn't spent time talking about the INFORMATIVE sites, it only tells us that Myspace, Twitter, and Facebook are the coolest places to be.

At the end of the day, we're just a collectively dumb and apathetic country, Jake. Regulation isn't going to smarten us up, it's only going to enable our stupidity and relieve us of the financial due diligence we're seriously lacking as a society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that the greatest generation's group intelligence makes the generations born in 1960 and after look absolutely stupid.

OK, how do we use the technology to educate the far right wind bags and far leftist toids who march in step to their masters' orders? Or is too late? Do Americans simply not want to think and learn? Are they going to be tools of the far left and the far right?

 

[Paulie]

I agree that the greatest generation's group intelligence makes the generations born in 1960 and after look absolutely stupid.

OK, how do we use the technology to educate the far right wind bags and far leftist toids who march in step to their masters' orders? Or is too late? Do Americans simply not want to think and learn>

You understanding and agreeing with me on that particular viewpoint just made my weekend, my man. Because it's so damn true.

I don't really know what to do anymore. As long as the TV controls our minds, we're fucked.

I make myself EARN my TV time, just like I do with my kids.

Most people just cop out and resort to it because it's all they know and it makes life "easy".

We're screwed, dude. We're screwed.

But just rest assured, our economic problems are not a product of regulation or lackthereof. That is merely one tiny aspect of our entire scope of problems.

People don't WANT to be educated on finance. That's why they want more regulation. It reduces their requirement to HAVE to learn.

 

[Paulie]

Either everyone wakes up all at once, or we continue being used as the pawns that we are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then it will be a struggle between leftists or corporatists trying to control government.

I don't like leftists, but I hate the corporatists who made that unholy union with the neo-cons and social values conservatives. The neo-cons are disgraced, thank heavens, and the social values folks are so distressed at being betrayed and callously thrown aside once they cast their votes that they will not support either group.

The leftists will win in the short run, but the corporatists will plot their eventual return.

 

[Paulie]

Then it will be a struggle between leftists or corporatists trying to control government.

I don't like leftists, but I hate the corporatists who made that unholy union with the neo-cons and social values conservatives. The neo-cons are disgraced, thank heavens, and the social values folks are so distressed at being betrayed and callously thrown aside once they cast their votes that they will not support either group.

The leftists will win in the short run, but the corporatists will plot their eventual return.

You're a perfect candidate to be a libertarian.

You get the best of both of those worlds.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, because the libertarians are as corruptible as the Dems or the GOPs.

I don't remember who wrote the column some years on definitions of liberals and conservatives and libertarians, but the point of it is this. Libertarians are all about economic freedom until one of their daughters is caught yoking the drug pusher on the corner for her fix. Then they cry for laws.

To me, libertarianism is nothing more, really, than, "Hey, get off my property", as if property is more important than humanity, which is the essence of life and liberty. I would not be a good libertarian at all.

 

[Paulie]

Nope, because the libertarians are as corruptible as the Dems or the GOPs.

I don't remember who wrote the column some years on definitions of liberals and conservatives and libertarians, but the point of it is this. Libertarians are all about economic freedom until one of their daughters is caught yoking the drug pusher on the corner for her fix. Then they cry for laws.

To me, libertarianism is nothing more, really, than, "Hey, get off my property", as if property is more important than humanity, which is the essence of life and liberty.

Don't make the same mistake as Rabbi in assuming an ideology only has one universal viewpoint.

There are a plethora of different types of libertarians. Just like there are a plethora of different types of dems, reps, cons, libs, socialists, communists, etc.

It's pointless to lump everyone into one tiny label. You're closing your mind and ruining yourself for educational expansion.

For example, I'm not the same type of libertarian as Ayn Rand. I'm not the same type of libertarian as even Ron Paul, although I greatly admire the man and would vote for him for president everytime I saw his name on the ballot.

Also, I don't mention libertarian as a political party. It's an ideology that has a multitude of different schools of thought within it. An ideology is not corruptible in the way you mention, as if it's a party.

I wouldn't join the libertarian party if my life depended on it. Parties mean nothing to me. I'm registered Rep simply because the conservative/libertarian candidates I like most always seem to run republican because they know thats how they have the best shot at getting through the manipulated system. So during a primary, being in a closed primary state, I have to be registered republican if i want to vote for them.

That's the ONLY reason I'm registered Rep. I'm not even a Reagan fan, except for this statement he made once about conservatives and libertarians:

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

Here's the whole quote though, which validates everything I just said about there being different types:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many shades of liberalism and conservatism exist as well as different types of libertarianism. My education is vast and extensive and continuing, so I do know what I believe and why I believe it. The capitalistic system has done well for me, if not for many others. I believe in regulation that eliminates corruption and enhances competition. I am comfortable in the center as a moderate Republican. I wish you well, but Libertarianism is not the answer for the U.S., in my opinion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unbridled capitalism is the problem

capitalism must be restrained if the masses aren't to be bent over by the big corporations

capitalism cannot sustain itself without borrowing from socialistic thought and idealism

So says the guy who bends over for Big Gubbamint...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Get off your knees, Frank, and act like a man.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Paulie, I am for capitalism, the type of government regulation that helped the greatest generation build the greatest middle class through the first of 1970s that the world has ever seen. The great middle class has deteriorated in the last thirty years since the beginning of Reaganism and deregulation.

Carter the great help to the American economy.

What a dick!

Not only are you dumb but you're dumb out in the 10 trillions column!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, CF, was talking about Carter. Actually, you nutter, I was talking about the down fall of the American middle class beginning with Reaganism and deregulation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yep, CF, was talking about Carter. Actually, you nutter, I was talking about the down fall of the American middle class beginning with Reaganism and deregulation.

What exactly was dereg...ahhh what a waste of electrons.

Put yourself on ignore.

Moron.