More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[Marxist]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

They are getting richer, and anyone who works the stock market for a living is a worthless scum.

That may well be but anyone can play the stock market. So anyone can get rich or go broke playing it.

They aren't worthless scum. They are folks who want to make money. Many do and many don't. Thats what happens when you play the market. You either make money or you don't.

That doesn't change the fact that they literally contribute nothing to society. It requires initial money and luck to "play the market" or whatever. They are folks who aren't doing anything beneficial to society.

 

[boedicca]

One day you will know the difference between communism and socialism. Maybe.
Then you could maybe fashion and intelligent post.

I already understand that the philosophical base is the same for both; they are slightly different flavors of totalitarianism.

And you couldn't recognize an intelligent and insightful post if your life depended upon it.

Neither communism nor socialism are, by their nature, totalitarian. They're primarily economic systems. Totalitarianism embraces economy, but they also embrace all other aspects of society. Fascism would be a better example of a totalitarian philosophy. Socialism and Communism are mostly resource distribution models.

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

No, he's not ignorant, you fail to understand communism/socialism.

You are so blinded by your ideology that you have no idea what the values are that inform both versions of your Totalitarian Collectivism.

 

[Marxist]

One day you will know the difference between communism and socialism. Maybe.
Then you could maybe fashion and intelligent post.

I already understand that the philosophical base is the same for both; they are slightly different flavors of totalitarianism.

And you couldn't recognize an intelligent and insightful post if your life depended upon it.

Neither communism nor socialism are, by their nature, totalitarian. They're primarily economic systems. Totalitarianism embraces economy, but they also embrace all other aspects of society. Fascism would be a better example of a totalitarian philosophy. Socialism and Communism are mostly resource distribution models.

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

No, he's not ignorant, you fail to understand communism/socialism.

You are so blinded by your ideology that you have no idea what the values are that inform both versions of your Totalitarian Collectivism.

You're blinded when it comes to capitalism, the contradictions, the failures that capitalists love to deny.... You tell me what communism and socialism is, the actual definitions, not your bullshit spin.

 

[boedicca]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

They are getting richer, and anyone who works the stock market for a living is a worthless scum.

That may well be but anyone can play the stock market. So anyone can get rich or go broke playing it.

They aren't worthless scum. They are folks who want to make money. Many do and many don't. Thats what happens when you play the market. You either make money or you don't.

That doesn't change the fact that they literally contribute nothing to society. It requires initial money and luck to "play the market" or whatever. They are folks who aren't doing anything beneficial to society.

It's always so telling to see people, such as Marxist, who benefit greatly from the efforts of many Rich People despise them for it.

Heinlein has a good quote for this:

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

 

[boedicca]

I already understand that the philosophical base is the same for both; they are slightly different flavors of totalitarianism.

And you couldn't recognize an intelligent and insightful post if your life depended upon it.

Neither communism nor socialism are, by their nature, totalitarian. They're primarily economic systems. Totalitarianism embraces economy, but they also embrace all other aspects of society. Fascism would be a better example of a totalitarian philosophy. Socialism and Communism are mostly resource distribution models.

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

No, he's not ignorant, you fail to understand communism/socialism.

You are so blinded by your ideology that you have no idea what the values are that inform both versions of your Totalitarian Collectivism.

You're blinded when it comes to capitalism, the contradictions, the failures that capitalists love to deny.... You tell me what communism and socialism is, the actual definitions, not your bullshit spin.

Oh blah blah blah. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is FAR BETTER than the Collectivist Terror that destroys life.

I suggest you read "Death By Government". Study the body counts and the form of government that caused them.


II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

 

[boilermaker55]

When one comes from you then it will deserve and intelligent comment.

One day you will know the difference between communism and socialism. Maybe.
Then you could maybe fashion and intelligent post.

I already understand that the philosophical base is the same for both; they are slightly different flavors of totalitarianism.

And you couldn't recognize an intelligent and insightful post if your life depended upon it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

USA TODAY
15 years later: Nasdaq closes at new record high
USA TODAY - ‎27 minutes ago‎


The Nasdaq rose 21 points Thursday to close at new record high of 5056, 15 long years after hitting 5048.62 on March 10, 2000. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 21 to 18,059 and the S&P 500 gained 5 to 2113.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What company have you run.

None, like most people.

And?.....So who the hell are you to demand others provide for your happiness?

Happiness? I want starving and impoverished children to get proper food and shelter. **** the capitalist greed.

Hey superstar...Capitalism and business have nothing to do with people who are not responsible for the well being of their kids.
You do realize, you stopped making sense about 12 pages ago, don't you?

Most of there parents work in third world countries, not my fault you can't keep up.

Most of the parents of WHOM?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wow......Without the business owner we have...WHAT?
Business does not operate for "the needs of society"...Nor should it.
Products and services are made available through market research.
Your premise would suggest you would have government force business for instance to continue making manual typewriters.
After all, the people employed by the typewriter manufacturer "need" jobs.
Have you a problem with the concept of profit?

I disagree with the idea of profit in regards to capitalism.

What does that mean?
I'll ask it another way..
If not for the purpose of profit potential( there are no guarantees) then where would be the incentive to start a business?

Why not start a business, in a system where the concept of profit and exploiting others isn't seen as ok.

Ahem....
Ok....I interview and hire someone. in that meeting I propose a wage and benefit package to which the new hire agrees. In return I have a high expectation of performance. I also expect the worker's performance to be such that his work has a net PLUS revenue result....
The worker is under the full understanding that there are periodic performance reviews that could result in either a bonus or reduction in pay.
He agrees....
Now you show me the "exploitation"....
I hired thus guy to help my firm make a better profit so that I can feed MY family. That's why I started this business.
You got a fuckin problem with that?....

Yes, the worker is getting paid less then what he is worth.

With no numbers to support your comment, it's just air.
Worth? Have you appointed yourself as the grand decider?
Here's how it works.....An applicant interviews for a job. The employer presents the prospect with a set of terms and conditions of employment.
The prospect agrees to those terms and conditions.
Where's the problem?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I disagree with the idea of profit in regards to capitalism.

What does that mean?
I'll ask it another way..
If not for the purpose of profit potential( there are no guarantees) then where would be the incentive to start a business?

Why not start a business, in a system where the concept of profit and exploiting others isn't seen as ok.

Because a business that doesn't make a profit, isn't in business anymore. Hostess is a perfect example. They had high labor costs, and went broke.

You don't hire people unless you make a profit from hiring them. If you actually lose money by hiring someone.... why would you hire them?

You prove the concept. You start a business where you don't profit or "exploit" anyone. Go do it. Stop b!tching about it, and do it yourself.

Of course you can't. And you won't.

What he's espousing is an economy run by govco where there are no owners only slaves of the government.

I want workers to control the government while it exists, and I want collective ownership of production.

A piece of news for you...Nobody cares what you want.
Collective ownership....May I suggest Air China for you one way trip to collective ownership.....BYE.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What does that mean?
I'll ask it another way..
If not for the purpose of profit potential( there are no guarantees) then where would be the incentive to start a business?

Why not start a business, in a system where the concept of profit and exploiting others isn't seen as ok.

Because a business that doesn't make a profit, isn't in business anymore. Hostess is a perfect example. They had high labor costs, and went broke.

You don't hire people unless you make a profit from hiring them. If you actually lose money by hiring someone.... why would you hire them?

You prove the concept. You start a business where you don't profit or "exploit" anyone. Go do it. Stop b!tching about it, and do it yourself.

Of course you can't. And you won't.

Collectively owned production by workers? That's the BS of capitalism, the inherit exploition of many for the profit of a few or one

By all means, start your collectively owned auto factory. Where are you going to get the capital to pay for just the R&D to make your prototype? Good luck. I can't wait to hear of your success.

That's the core of the problem, those who own capital are the ones who control the production and exploit others, the system is the problem.

When and where does the alleged exploitation take place?
Do not answer with, "when the workers are forced to accept low wages"....That's bullshit.
We are as free a society in any country on the planet. No one is forced to accept anything here;

 

[thereisnospoon]

As expected, your rant doesn't even start to address the statement made or the premise of the comment.
When you start to inject your own interpretations of a post , that makes you ballistic.

The investment doesn't work unless the middle class workers do the job. Dumbass!

ROFL what a dumb ass POS you are.

I suppose you've never done any work as an investment that you were not directly paid for. Effing marxist pig. Investments don't have to pay off. Investments in $ is no different than an investment in time or effort.

That doesn't matter. Without the Capitalists, there would be no work for the middle class to do.

Without the capitalists, work would be based on the actual needs of society, not by what the capitalist wants done for profit.

Wow......Without the business owner we have...WHAT?
Business does not operate for "the needs of society"...Nor should it.
Products and services are made available through market research.
Your premise would suggest you would have government force business for instance to continue making manual typewriters.
After all, the people employed by the typewriter manufacturer "need" jobs.
Have you a problem with the concept of profit?

I'm going to give you a hall pass on that comment.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Engage in a debate? You understanding seems to be to perplexed for you to make a comment regarding what is being discussed.

Still won't take up the challenge of putting all your investment into a company and its equipment and not hire anyone to do the work!
See how much money you get on your investment.
You choose to justify your ideology on the poorest of poor countries ; and who knows where the photos were taken.
Put up or shut up! LOL

Yeah, that's why the Soviets were literally starving to death. That's why Venezuela has record poverty and malnutrition. That's why people were willing to risk death to swim to Miami.

We've seen how your system works... it works by leaving people impoverished, and starving.

Cuban "pharmacy". No Capitalists making profit, and no medications either.

Venezuela; Sign says "made with socialism"... above the empty shelves.

Dude people do what you say all the time.

My former employer, they had a picture of the dude with all the machines, building stuff by himself in his basement. He built the company with his own hands. He was worth millions before he hired the first employee.

Apple computer, HP, and dozens of other companies all started without employees, just the owners making it work.

I think it was Snapple, where the guy put literally all his money into the business, and actually lived out of his car, in the parking lot of his business.

People do what you say ALL THE FREAKIN TIME.

As soon as I can find it, there was a Hot Rod Magazine article, about a guy who bought all the equipment, and the building, and hand made hot rods. He molded the metal, and did all the work himself. He was a multi millionaire making custom coups. He hired.... NO ONE.

People do this all the time. You people are bat crazy.

I'll never forget the day I was working at this company, and one of the machines broke down. So this dude was there rolling around on the floor, in jeans and a t-shirt, flopping around with tools in the dirt. And one of the guys walked up and said.... "that's him". I was standing there, thinking that's who? The new maintenance crew? The guy looked at me... no he's the owner and CEO. He signs your pay check. He owns this whole place.

I was shocked.... there he was with grimy tools, cranking on a machine. Turns out he installed all the machines himself, and before he had employees, he setup the machines, ran the machines, and repaired the machines all himself. So when they broke down, he just put on some old jeans, grabbed his tools, and fixed them.

He could run the WHOLE FREAKIN PLACE, without an employee. But that doesn't work with your socialist myth that "they can't earn anything without us, and they don't do anything".

But you are wrong. You are ignorant, and foolish.

Keep cherry picking and ignoring that once companies are founded, this stops happening in those companies.

Ahh..The lib playbook.....Instead of engaging the debate, you find yourself unable to rebut, you accuse the OP of cherry picking......Typical.

You should have stopped at "seems".....
Look, stop sitting on the sidelines rooting for the losing team. Get in the game.
So far all I've seen from you are drive by one liners.

 

[Andylusion]

I already understand that the philosophical base is the same for both; they are slightly different flavors of totalitarianism.

And you couldn't recognize an intelligent and insightful post if your life depended upon it.

Neither communism nor socialism are, by their nature, totalitarian. They're primarily economic systems. Totalitarianism embraces economy, but they also embrace all other aspects of society. Fascism would be a better example of a totalitarian philosophy. Socialism and Communism are mostly resource distribution models.

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

No, he's not ignorant, you fail to understand communism/socialism.

You are so blinded by your ideology that you have no idea what the values are that inform both versions of your Totalitarian Collectivism.

You're blinded when it comes to capitalism, the contradictions, the failures that capitalists love to deny.... You tell me what communism and socialism is, the actual definitions, not your bullshit spin.

This is why no one takes the left-wing seriously.

When you judge Capitalism, you base it on the failures of a system that isn't the ideal. Take health care. You look at Health care, and complain bitterly that capitalism has failed in health care.

Problem is, we regulations, fees, mandates and millions of government controls. So we respond, that isn't the ideal capitalist system.

We can show that because when people go to other countries, do they go to the Socialized health care hospitals? Do they go to the government hospitals in India and Singapore? No. They do not. They go to the capitalist, pay-for-service, hospitals in those countries, because the socialized ones suck.

But then when judging Socialism.... you reject all of our examples, because that's not the "ideal" of socialism. Soviet Union "that's not real socialism". Pre-78 China "That's not ideal socialism". Pol Pot, Nazi Germany, Cuba, and on and on and on "None of those are 'real' socialism".

Well, you are wrong. Your ideal version of socialism does not exist, and can not exist. It never has existed, and never will exist. Socialism universally, in every form that has ever been implemented, has failed.

Where is your example of Socialism that works? Where is it?

Because we know that Capitalism does work. It's worked every time it's been tried. It's worked in China after the liberalization reforms. It has worked in India. It has worked in Estonia, and Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and South Korea.

Capitalism has worked everywhere, every time, with striking results.

The only problems in Capitalism based economies, is the socialized aspects of those economies. There are no horrible contradictions in Capitalism, except the assumptions made about Capitalism, by those who are not Capitalists.

 

[Flopper]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

They are getting richer, and anyone who works the stock market for a living is a worthless scum.

That may well be but anyone can play the stock market. So anyone can get rich or go broke playing it.

They aren't worthless scum. They are folks who want to make money. Many do and many don't. Thats what happens when you play the market. You either make money or you don't.

That doesn't change the fact that they literally contribute nothing to society. It requires initial money and luck to "play the market" or whatever. They are folks who aren't doing anything beneficial to society.

I have to disagree with you on that point. They are certainly not worthless scum. Playing the market means high-risk trading by inexperienced traders in hopes of making a quick profit. The damage they do is to themselves because very few of them make money in the long run. They do provide additional liquidity to the market which is good but not essential.

Professional day traders, specialist, floor brokers, market makers, and customer brokers make the markets work. Without that function there would be no stock, bond, or commodity markets.

 

[Andylusion]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

They are getting richer, and anyone who works the stock market for a living is a worthless scum.

That may well be but anyone can play the stock market. So anyone can get rich or go broke playing it.

They aren't worthless scum. They are folks who want to make money. Many do and many don't. Thats what happens when you play the market. You either make money or you don't.

That doesn't change the fact that they literally contribute nothing to society. It requires initial money and luck to "play the market" or whatever. They are folks who aren't doing anything beneficial to society.

Who exactly would you claim is a Capitalist that contributes nothing to society?

I play the market. I have stocks in Corporations. I earn $20K a year. Am I one of those who contributes nothing to society?

 

[Marxist]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

They are getting richer, and anyone who works the stock market for a living is a worthless scum.

That may well be but anyone can play the stock market. So anyone can get rich or go broke playing it.

They aren't worthless scum. They are folks who want to make money. Many do and many don't. Thats what happens when you play the market. You either make money or you don't.

That doesn't change the fact that they literally contribute nothing to society. It requires initial money and luck to "play the market" or whatever. They are folks who aren't doing anything beneficial to society.

I have to disagree with you on that point. They are certainly not worthless scum. Playing the market means high-risk trading by inexperienced traders in hopes of making a quick profit. The damage they do is to themselves because very few of them make money in the long run. They do provide additional liquidity to the market which is good but not essential.

Professional day traders, specialist, floor brokers, market makers, and customer brokers make the markets work. Without that function there would be no stock, bond, or commodity markets.

I think of beneficial in terms of actual productive labor.

 

[Marxist]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

They are getting richer, and anyone who works the stock market for a living is a worthless scum.

That may well be but anyone can play the stock market. So anyone can get rich or go broke playing it.

They aren't worthless scum. They are folks who want to make money. Many do and many don't. Thats what happens when you play the market. You either make money or you don't.

That doesn't change the fact that they literally contribute nothing to society. It requires initial money and luck to "play the market" or whatever. They are folks who aren't doing anything beneficial to society.

Who exactly would you claim is a Capitalist that contributes nothing to society?

I play the market. I have stocks in Corporations. I earn $20K a year. Am I one of those who contributes nothing to society?

Capitalists who sit back with billions while children starve to death, when they have the means to stop it. Capitalists who lay off employees and raise their bonuses and their executives, capitalists who profit off of the 2008 collapse, capitalists who sit on their asses while workers maintain a factory and claim that they own it, reaping everything that is produced by real proletariat.

 

[Marxist]

Neither communism nor socialism are, by their nature, totalitarian. They're primarily economic systems. Totalitarianism embraces economy, but they also embrace all other aspects of society. Fascism would be a better example of a totalitarian philosophy. Socialism and Communism are mostly resource distribution models.

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

No, he's not ignorant, you fail to understand communism/socialism.

You are so blinded by your ideology that you have no idea what the values are that inform both versions of your Totalitarian Collectivism.

You're blinded when it comes to capitalism, the contradictions, the failures that capitalists love to deny.... You tell me what communism and socialism is, the actual definitions, not your bullshit spin.

This is why no one takes the left-wing seriously.

When you judge Capitalism, you base it on the failures of a system that isn't the ideal. Take health care. You look at Health care, and complain bitterly that capitalism has failed in health care.

Problem is, we regulations, fees, mandates and millions of government controls. So we respond, that isn't the ideal capitalist system.

We can show that because when people go to other countries, do they go to the Socialized health care hospitals? Do they go to the government hospitals in India and Singapore? No. They do not. They go to the capitalist, pay-for-service, hospitals in those countries, because the socialized ones suck.

But then when judging Socialism.... you reject all of our examples, because that's not the "ideal" of socialism. Soviet Union "that's not real socialism". Pre-78 China "That's not ideal socialism". Pol Pot, Nazi Germany, Cuba, and on and on and on "None of those are 'real' socialism".

Well, you are wrong. Your ideal version of socialism does not exist, and can not exist. It never has existed, and never will exist. Socialism universally, in every form that has ever been implemented, has failed.

Where is your example of Socialism that works? Where is it?

Because we know that Capitalism does work. It's worked every time it's been tried. It's worked in China after the liberalization reforms. It has worked in India. It has worked in Estonia, and Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and South Korea.

Capitalism has worked everywhere, every time, with striking results.

The only problems in Capitalism based economies, is the socialized aspects of those economies. There are no horrible contradictions in Capitalism, except the assumptions made about Capitalism, by those who are not Capitalists.

The Paris commune, the free lands of Ukraine, groups during the Spanish revolution.. Ah, it seems like you're assuming the "pure" capitalism argument. Tell me one thing socialist about any claimed socialist country. Workers owning production? Show me. I can't take your stupidity seriously. It hasn't worked everywhere you idiot, and the contradictions are real, I recommend you watch David Harvey's contradictions to get an idea. Of course, capitalism will appear to work at first, but eventually, capitalists will not have anywhere else to shift their horrid exploitation, yeah, Chinese factory workers and sweatshop workers are doing great. It worked in India? Tell me all about the poor over there. You're ignoring those in poverty who have to do the horrid exploitive work. Then again, capitalists define the poverty line, and many disagree with it, it's to low, and many economists know this.

 

[Marxist]

Why not start a business, in a system where the concept of profit and exploiting others isn't seen as ok.

Because a business that doesn't make a profit, isn't in business anymore. Hostess is a perfect example. They had high labor costs, and went broke.

You don't hire people unless you make a profit from hiring them. If you actually lose money by hiring someone.... why would you hire them?

You prove the concept. You start a business where you don't profit or "exploit" anyone. Go do it. Stop b!tching about it, and do it yourself.

Of course you can't. And you won't.

Collectively owned production by workers? That's the BS of capitalism, the inherit exploition of many for the profit of a few or one

By all means, start your collectively owned auto factory. Where are you going to get the capital to pay for just the R&D to make your prototype? Good luck. I can't wait to hear of your success.

That's the core of the problem, those who own capital are the ones who control the production and exploit others, the system is the problem.

When and where does the alleged exploitation take place?
Do not answer with, "when the workers are forced to accept low wages"....That's bullshit.
We are as free a society in any country on the planet. No one is forced to accept anything here;

Ever hear of surplus value? Wage slavery? The fact that you essentially have to work for the capitalists or not be able to buy food?