capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28205
PAGE 3 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:21 AM (P)

Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit?

si shen

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:25 AM (P)

T

I have ... hmmm ... provided historical context ... broad perspective over time and across the globe .... facts ... an analysis ... and a suggested solution.

Meanwhile you've provided nothing but slander and propaganda. If that's how ya wanna roll, I certainly am not going to waste my time trying to stop you.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:28 AM (P)

And you believe this because your preferred mouthpiece says so. Figures. Meanwhile you blow past policy statements of the China Communist Party, facts and figures and laws of the country as irrelevant, because, well, whatever.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Apparently nothing you are capable of understanding. But that's not a surprise.

“Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots.

But today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economic forces that were really transforming the Chinese economy in the first decade of reform were private farming, township and village enterprises, private business in cities, and the Special Economic Zones. None of them was initiated from Beijing. They were marginal players operating outside the boundary of socialism".

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:31 AM (P)

So you REALLY DON'T CARE if the vast majority of people live short miserable lives while very few are astronomically wealthy and powerful, or if instead the vast majority have decent lives to look forward to. Well, now we know what you stand for.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:35 AM (P)

1kiki you provide nothing but suggestions based on falsehoods and ignorance. You spin facts to imply they mean something else which is a trait you share with someone else. You respond to others posts by suggesting they responded wrongly to a post and did not provide prof for things they are not even speaking about. You are bullshit trying to sell more bullshit.

As long as I post here I will call you on it.

si shen

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:57 AM (P)

G

It looks like you can't divorce yourself from the system you prefer, so as to be able to look around the world and into the past, and to imagine the future. I suggested trying to take on a different perspective, not to embrace it as reality, but to be able to think about these ideas calmly. Apparently, you can't.

Also, I take it you side with T and really don't care if lots of people live short miserable lives as long as you get to keep a system you like.

If that's not the case, let me know.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:03 AM (P)

So, you have no reply to the facts of policy statements of the Chinese Communist Party, to Chinese land ownership law, and to economic analysis of dominant public ownership of the economy. Instead you make completely unsupported statements. And then you engage in ad hominem attacks. Is that about it?

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
1kiki you provide nothing but suggestions based on falsehoods and ignorance. You spin facts to imply they mean something else which is a trait you share with someone else.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
G

Your argument is limited. Saying 'that's how it works!' doesn't take into account the past where things didn't work this way, the present where there are places they don't work this way, or the future where people will do things differently.

Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.

...G

OMG - major logic gap, all caps for your understanding: IT'S NOT A SCIENCE FICTION STORY - IT'S REAL LIFE. That's why Signym's wizbang theories don't hold water. They are fanciful what-ifs only. You don't see that?
Let's all play: I think everyone should be able to never work again, full insurance, full college education for their kids, wheeeeeee - done! I solved the world!

Yeah..Yeah..Yeah.... Logic at last..... Hurray...G

si shen

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:33 AM (P)

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

It's a good thing you have smart people you can quote at the click of a button, because you sure can't come up with anything intelligent on your own.

si shen

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:42 AM (P)

Double Post

si shen

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 8:11 AM (P)

So, you have no reply to the facts of policy statements of the Chinese Communist Party, to Chinese land ownership law, and to economic analysis of dominant public ownership of the economy. Instead you make completely unsupported statements. And then you engage in ad hominem attacks. Is that about it?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 8:19 AM (P)

si shen

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 29, 2014 9:11 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit?

si shen

Ahhhh, the actual point of this thread.

I prefered the sidebars where possibilities were explored.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 29, 2014 11:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Why do you care so much about the wealthy unless you covet their wealth?

I know this was to KIKI, but... I don't care about the wealthy. I care about everyone else - the nonwealthy. You're the one who cares about the wealthy. For example

Quote:
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.

In other words, you care more about the wealthy and their tax rates than you do about the poor.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:29 PM (P)

G, to get back to the point where you ask about my ideal society, then claim it "won't work", then cite numerous examples which themselves are faulty... I'll get into that in a bit... THEN claim all you want is a intelligent debate. Well, you struck out on all points - especially on the intelligent conversation part. You put up a wall of pretty unintelligent prejudice, which is what I predicted.

So, in detail...

Quote:
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth. I've mentioned it before several times. The reason is a wealth tax would be fought tooth and nail by the wealthy and we'd probably have to wait for many generations before we had a solution and the economy was running again.

Can you give me ONE example in the vast reaches of history where significant wealth was transferred voluntarily from the rich to he poor? Since you can't, what makes you think that we would be waiting any less time for this miraculous event to occur than we would spend fighting for a wealth tax?

Quote:
It also feels like punishment, and I don't think the very wealthy have ipso facto done anything wealthy. The idea that they have seems more like something the angry masses are going viral on, like they have an excuse to hate.

Pobrecito! Poor things, feeling all punished!!!! God forbid we hurt their feelings while keeping people from starving!

It's really nothing personal. The problem is the crap-ton of $$ swirling around in a tornado of speculation at the top of the food chain. If you inject $$ at the bottom, all it does is create inflation. (Need to increase production) If you inject $$ at the top, like the Fed is doing, all you do is make the speculation whirl even faster.

Quote:
Who gets to decides these amounts? Who gets to enforce them? What if my country objects?

The regulating authority is the...

Quote:
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), on which the United States serves as a participating member, developed international regulatory capital standards through a number of capital accords and related publications, which have collectively been in effect since 1988.... In October 2013, the Federal Reserve Board proposed rules to implement the Liquidity Coverage Ratio in the United States, which would strengthen the liquidity positions of large financial institutions. The proposal would create for the first time a standardized minimum liquidity requirements for large and internationally active banking organizations and systemically important, non-bank financial companies designed by the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/basel/

Quote:
Who decides if there is a disparity between the sexes?

Please read more carefully. I said LEGAL disparity. Do the written laws treat men and women differently? Can women own property? Drive a car? File for divorce? Testify in court? All of this is easy to figure out

Quote:
Who decides what a Fair election is?

There are international observers who can tell whether fraud was involved in an election. They do this by means of observing ballot and polling place security, exit polls etc. Did you know that the USA refused international observers of our national elections?

Quote:
That's never going to happen

Huh, thats' funny. You claim its can't happen, but it already has. In Russia, China and other proto-socialist nations. Not only are you unrealistic as to what "can" and "can't" happen, you're a little behind the times. Well, OK-- waaaay behind the times!

Usually change like that happens as a result of a revolution, or profound civil disorder. But those DO occur.

Quote:
- this is where you loose me completely because your ideas are so fanciful - they

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.

Too funny. You made me spit out my morning coffee.

Starbucks coffee? Are you another bitching hypocrite? Or just another dullard? Or do you agree?

Oh the idea of wealthy people voluntarily giving up their wealth, because that happens, like never...

No dont do Starbucks. Happy to say that Starbucks tried and failed in this country because basically American coffee is shit and nobody wanted to drink it.

Am I a bitching hypocrite? I don't think so, but what would make me a one? Not sure.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.

si shen

Yeah, you can accomplish it in a number of ways, but having control over natural resources and being able to reap the profit from natural resources as a people is a good idea.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit? - T

Ahhhh, the actual point of this thread. - CHRIS

Indeed.

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 8:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.

si shen

Yeah, you can accomplish it in a number of ways, but having control over natural resources and being able to reap the profit from natural resources as a people is a good idea.

No it's not. It's called communism.

si shen

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 29, 2014 10:30 PM (P)

There should be an internet equivalent to godwin's law

Select to view spoiler:

Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"?[2][3]—? that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

only for "communism" instead.

Clearly, "T", you don't have a clue what communism is. But if that's YOUR definition of communism, then you just made communism sound pretty attractive, compared to the current alternative! Keep up the good work!

And hey, thanks for the thread bump!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 29, 2014 10:48 PM (P)

Don't spend too much time judging people still enthralled by a "human" system.

Everything you humans do is stupid.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What do I think of as intelligent, the opposite of stupid? I think it means being able to look at a wide range of information and to examine it in its own right - without reference to our own fears and wishes - to reach an understanding of what it is. So for example, not looking on solar eclipses as portents from gods regarding our human fortunes, but as celestial mechanisms running in their own way. In that regard, capitalism is extremely stupid. It looks at the entire universe of data and asks only one human-related question - can it make a profit? That makes it incredibly stupid.

And what do I think of a wise, the opposite of foolish? It means looking at the range of information we've gotten through our intelligence, and understanding what does it mean for us. In that regard, capitalism is extremely foolish, because having looked at only one question - can it make a profit? - it automatically concludes it should be done. That makes it incredibly foolish.

So why do we trust our lives to this stupid and foolish human system?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 11:06 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Clearly, "T", you don't have a clue what communism is. But if that's YOUR definition of communism, then you just made communism sound pretty attractive, compare to the current alternative! Keep up the good work!

And hey, thanks for the thread bump!

You live in a fantasy signym. So what you perceive to be, is inconsequential in the real world. This applies to what you think about what I say as well.

si shen

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 29, 2014 11:23 PM (P)

So, you're absolutely correct- you're not being reasonable, you're not even "pretending" to be reasonable. You keep making the point that we can't have change, because this is the way things are, ignoring the rather vast fact that not only have things changed in the past, they are different in different parts of the world, and are changing even as we speak. Hubby says, in listening to your posts That idiot thinks his suburb is the world. Anyway, if you could at least pretend to be reasonable, that would be far preferable to what you're doing now.

Quote:
You say such unbelievably naive things like, "we'll simply take the money from the wealthy..." It's hard to take you seriously. I don't give a shit about the wealthy, they are just fine. I want their money redistributed as well, but trying to take only satisfies your desire to get even, it's petty and small.

First of all, you're imputing motives to me that don't exist. Can you PLEASE separate out your opinion of my motives from the real world out there?? I have no desire to "get even", I am trying to solve a real problem "out there" (in the real world) where too much money is in one place and not enough in another.

Quote:
They didn't get wealthy by letting people control them, they will make you think you got even, took your pound of flesh when you will have not accomplished your end goal.

Here you claim that they will do "something" - you apparently don't know what that might be- in order to keep their wealth (in actuality) while "making me think I "got even". First of all, since you INSIST, if only to yourself, that my goal is to "get even", then your imaginary rich people are directed to an entirely imaginary goal. GOOD!

Quote:
Like the history of all of philanthropy maybe? So a couple trillion examples. How much did the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donate just this year?

Do these foundations ever donate to the poor? No. The poor NEVER see any of that money. What they see is whatever form of "charity" the rich choose to give them... GMO seeds or GMO food aid, or vaccine trials where they get to be used as guinea pigs (when they really need mosquito nets), or "privatized" education, or treated drinking water that they have to pay for.

So, as examples, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would never to anything as simple as give money to the poor - which is, BTW, the most effective way of dealing with poverty. NOPE! The B&MG Foundation "gives money" to efforts which increase centralized control- the Svarlbard Seed Bank (try getting those seeds back out, unless you're a corporation or a rich person) and vaccine trials (investing in Big Pharma). ALL of the philanthropic organizations that I can think of- even the ones that claim they are "doing well by doing good" - are trying to remake the world in the image and likeness of whatever the donors want it to be, whether it is Zuckerburg's attempt to "reform" (ie privatize) New Jersey schools, or Bill Gates' attempt to corner future seed availability, or Pierre Omidyar's attempt to vacuum up all relevant investigative journalists.

So even when donating, the wealthy retain control. Because just instituting fair trade practices which would have prevented the accumulation too much wealth to begin with... I mean, how much fun is that??.

Quote:
So who the hell are they? Now we're trusting the US Gov?

YOU don't know about Basel and the FDIC? I'm sorry but... what do you think you're adding to the conversation, from such a point of ignorance?

Quote:
Do you know who these observers are?

Yes. But the great thing is, if you don't like THOSE observers... maybe you feel they're biased... you can always send in more, from a different source. Imagine

Select to view spoiler:

oh, wait, I fo

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 11:26 PM (P)

Don't take the bait.....G...It's all subjective nonsense.

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 30, 2014 12:28 AM (P)

Nice pictures, T!

THGRRI

Monday, June 30, 2014 12:32 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Nice pictures, T!

I know, when I posted it I took a second look. It's great work. Norman Rockwell ish.

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 30, 2014 1:04 AM (P)

G

And you claim all you want is intelligent discussion. Is a snark-fest part of that?

BTW, so I went back to check out the 'solutions' you proposed. Where are they?

It's a viscous [sic] cycle. Consumers want to pay less, so businesses have to find ways to make their products for less to compete and stay in business. Consumers will often value Cost ahead of Safety, Health, Quality, Sustainability - many of the same things corps are faulted for they can also be blamed for. That's one reason WalMart works so well - just damn cheap prices. It's also why they try and squeeze costs on the backside, employee benefits. This won't change no matter what the system is, people being people on both sides. So I say fix the current one, don't dump it for something unknown. Raising minimum wage sounds great and maybe it would be. Or maybe the cost of goods and services would go up as well. Catch-22.

Would you voluntarily reduce your income? If someone tried to regulate your income would you accept it easily, or would you fight it? Or go around it (i.e., find ways to not pay)?

How would you regulate profit equally so Hong's Noodle Shop does not get an unfair advantage over Wang's?

Also - this is such a loosely defined issue. Is the issue that all profit is bad? Is it that there are too many people without enough money? Wages are too low, prices too high? For everything?

I think more focus would be helpful - just saying "Capitalism must go" is so broad and undoable, a conversation stopper imho.

Jobs - the engine that drives all economies (or so I've read). I think right now the problem is the very rich 1% have their money invested in paper instead of things that create jobs. Just a guess though.

I think kitty broke your logic board ;)

For one: it may mathematically be a zero sum game technically on paper (though I doubt that), but in day to day reality the amount of wealth in the world is so vast that just in it's trillions of transactions hourly anyone can accrue their own little island of modest wealth and security. I buy from someone and they get my money, then they give what was my money to someone else for something else's, on and on times a million million. Only when it is stored does it have some negative effect. That's why it's been cited that one of the biggest drags on the economy is the very wealthy are not spending their money like they have in the past, they are not creating jobs as they have. That's also why it was suggested a great way of unsticking that wealth is to get the 1% to sponsor infrastructure projects. "Buy a Bridge." This appeals to their desire to be well liked by Society (lessens their guilt if they have any) while it creates jobs and repairs or builds the stuff we need. I've worked parties where the very wealthy get together and drink and nibble caviar and write checks for blank charity. We just need it on a larger scale.

I think Chris is a capitalist. He produces a good or service that he then sells for a profit. Um, you are making a profit aren't you Chris? What if Chris got an order for 1000 phasers from a wealthy Chinese Trekkie? He'd probably have to hire someone to help, Sonisall perhaps + all of his friends. He's also probably going need to take out a small business loan so he can buy the raw material needed to make the phasers. Along comes TGHIRR who loans Chris the money at a specific rate. Without the money Chris couldn't fill the order, bills go unpaid, etc. For the majority of the small businesses out there, that you and all of us use, that is the way of it. Loans allow someone to work for themselves instead of for someone else.

Profit is money for doing nothing??? I get this overwhelming feeling that you do not have any real world experience. As essential as they are, reading and thinking are not doing, just the start.

Chris's scenario is a great example of where paper logic let's you down.

First, since you and Ki

THGRRI

Monday, June 30, 2014 1:17 AM (P)

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 30, 2014 1:28 AM (P)

And right on cue, T answers for G.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 30, 2014 1:41 AM (P)

Quote:
No problem - she's and endless nonsense and denial machine. No wonder her husband agrees with her... *shudder*

ad hominem

Well, the real G shows up.

G, didn't you claim that you were looking for intelligent debate? I answered your comments several times, point by point, with both opinion and facts to back them up. Isn't that the mark of intelligent debate?

You, OTOH, only seem to have ad hominems on your side of the board.

Yanno, I'm looking for intelligent discussion too. It would be nice if someone could stick to a point, track down the underlying logic, find supporting (or countervailing) examples, and do all of the necessary things that are expected in a intelligent debate. So far I'm sorry to say that I haven't found it from you. However, should you wish to engage in an actual, real intelligent debate in the future, please let me know.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, June 30, 2014 4:58 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

No it's not. It's called communism.

si shen

Ah, I see where your philosophy lies.

Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist. Singapore springs to mind as a very uncommunist country, but where government largely owns all utilities.

30 years ago, in this country, most utilities were government owned, and most then were sold off. The status of government owning or not owning utilities made no difference to our system of government which is a democratic one. It did however affect the price of electricity and gas, and also how well the infrastructure was maintained.

It's very easy to panic about ideas which feel outside the norm for your ideology and to catastrophise such ideas. The world is a much more nuanced place than 'Mericans, Commies and Jihadists'

THGRRI

Monday, June 30, 2014 6:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

No it's not. It's called communism.

si shen

Ah, I see where your philosophy lies.

Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist. Singapore springs to mind as a very uncommunist country, but where government largely owns all utilities.

30 years ago, in this country, most utilities were government owned, and most then were sold off. The status of government owning or not owning utilities made no difference to our system of government which is a democratic one. It did however affect the price of electricity and gas, and also how well the infrastructure was maintained.

It's very easy to panic about ideas which feel outside the norm for your ideology and to catastrophise such ideas. The world is a much more nuanced place than 'Mericans, Commies and Jihadists'

I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water

si shen

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 30, 2014 6:43 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist.

MD, here in the U.S.A. we have been very effectively brainwashed into believing the concept that high taxes & government regulation (much less control) is a far leftist, Commie plot to destroy Democracy.
BTW, I am NOT being facetious here.
See: AURaptor.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, June 30, 2014 7:32 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water

si shen

So what was with the crack about communism? You probably are not even sure of my views, so why assume that I want to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.?

THGRRI

Monday, June 30, 2014 8:12 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water

si shen

So what was with the crack about communism? You probably are not even sure of my views, so why assume that I want to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.?

Giving or returning government control over any business is certainly not a first step that would be recommended by anyone who believes in capitalism. That suggests you believe in an alternative. So I ask you, what are the alternatives?

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 30, 2014 10:09 AM (P)

Quote:
So I ask you, what are the alternatives?

COMMUNISM! [/snark]

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, June 30, 2014 10:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Giving or returning government control over any business is certainly not a first step that would be recommended by anyone who believes in capitalism. That suggests you believe in an alternative. So I ask you, what are the alternatives?

si shen

Sorry I must be confused? Didn't you just write this

Quote:
In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

I don't believe in unfettered capitalism, it needs checks and balances the same as governments do. The problem with the US, one of the problems, is that your corporations, unelected and largely unregulated are far more powerful than government. Government becomes just another pawn in a corporatist society. I dont know how you solve the problems of the US and dont even begin to try.

However, I dont live in the US and i do believe we can learn through your mistakes, not that we aren't suject to economic pressures as a result of decisions made in your country. I supported a superprofits mining tax, similar to what happens in Norway. I think companies shouldn't solely profit from what should be a national resource.

I think there is a place for publically owned housing and banking, and to not sell off any more utitlities.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, June 30, 2014 10:50 AM (P)

Norway's resources tax and how it works.

Quote:
NORWAY'S Prime Minister has spruiked the benefits of his country's oil and gas industry tax while in Perth today amid suggesting Australia's controversial mining tax should not necessarily follow suit.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, in Perth to officially open the world’s largest offshore marine simulator - Norwegian company Farstad Shipping’s $20 million offshore simulation centre (FSOSC) located at Bibra Lake - provided an overview of his nation’s successful system which taxes oil revenue at a world-leading 78 per cent.

Treasury has predicted that the controversial minerals resource rent tax (MRRT) will raise $11 billion in its first three years after lobbing a 30 per cent tax on iron ore and coal mining companies’ profits.

Mr Stoltenberg described how Norway’s “special system for the oil and gas industry” worked well because of its equitable benefits for the nation’s economy and industry.

“They (oil and gas companies) have quite high tax rates,” Mr Stoltenberg told PerthNow.

“But, on the other hand, the industry is allowed to deduct all their expenses against the higher tax rates so, in a way, the industry pay higher taxes but they also deduct the costs against the tax rate so, in that, it’s not so heavy a tax burden.”

Mr Stoltenberg said the 78 per cent tax has not negatively affected local foreign investment in the lucrative sector.

“That works well,” he added.

“They can deduct 78 per cent of their costs, so you have to see both sides of the coin.”

Importantly, Mr Stoltenberg clarified how his country was investing the revenues generated by the oil tax into a national pension fund, akin to a future fund or sovereign wealth fund, securing Norway’s economic future on the back of the massive oil and gas industry.

“We established a pension fund: the idea is to save the revenue from the oil and gas sector,” he explained.

“All the state revenues are going directly into the pension fund and then we spend only the return, the real return, which is estimated to be 4 per cent.

“So we will never, in anyway, spend the instalment or use the instalment, we will only spend the return on the instalment.

“And the instalment for the time being is equal to around 100 per cent of GDP, more than $US500 billion.”

The MRRT does not include any form of sovereign wealth fund, in fact, Prime Minister Julia Gillard in August said that Australia does not need a sovereign wealth fund

“I believe that superannuation is already our trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund – but with market benefits,” Ms Gillard told a Financial Services Council breakfast in Sydney.

“That’s because it’s privately managed by thousands of trustees instead of a sovereign wealth fund managed centrally by a Canberra-appointed manager.

“Or alternatively, you could say that Australia has eight million sovereign wealth funds – the superannuation accounts of Australians across the country.

“These are the very same superannuation accounts we want to make massive injections into.

“But we can’t do it without an important piece of policy architecture, and that is the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.”

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/dont-copy-our-oil-and-gas-tax-norw
ay-pm/story-e6frg2r3-1226218409771?nk=bd369ea7bd41fc04062d47682039cee8

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, June 30, 2014 10:53 AM (P)

Finland funds all education including higher ed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland

Education in Finland is a system with no tuition fees and with fully subsidised meals served to full-time students. The present Finnish education system consists of daycare programs (for babies and toddlers) and a one-year "pre-school" (or kindergarten for six-year-olds); a nine-year compulsory basic comprehensive school (starting at age seven and ending at the age of fifteen); post-compulsory secondary general academic and vocational education; higher education (University and University of Applied Sciences); and adult (lifelong, continuing) education. The Finnish strategy for achieving equality and excellence in education has been based on constructing a publicly funded comprehensive school system without selecting, tracking, or streaming students during their common basic education.[1] Part of the strategy has been to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or, if this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusive special education within the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical of Nordic educational systems.[1]

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, June 30, 2014 10:57 AM (P)

An article on the Singaporean model, an economically successful mix of ideological models

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/10293503/Sing
apore-safe-haven-model-society.html

THGRRI

Monday, June 30, 2014 7:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Giving or returning government control over any business is certainly not a first step that would be recommended by anyone who believes in capitalism. That suggests you believe in an alternative. So I ask you, what are the alternatives?

si shen

Sorry I must be confused? Didn't you just write this

Quote:
In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

I don't believe in unfettered capitalism, it needs checks and balances the same as governments do. The problem with the US, one of the problems, is that your corporations, unelected and largely unregulated are far more powerful than government. Government becomes just another pawn in a corporatist society. I dont know how you solve the problems of the US and dont even begin to try.

However, I dont live in the US and i do believe we can learn through your mistakes, not that we aren't suject to economic pressures as a result of decisions made in your country. I supported a superprofits mining tax, similar to what happens in Norway. I think companies shouldn't solely profit from what should be a national resource.

I think there is a place for publically owned housing and banking, and to not sell off any more utitlities.

Yes I wrote that, but there are always caveats. That statement is one dimensional thinking on my part. Just a statement. Here’s another. While I believe more people benefit from their government jobs than in private industry, it is because they offer different things. Government jobs offer better job security and benefits while private industry, if you have an education offers better pay for some while many barely get by. Government jobs better represent this countries past when income levels were more in line with fairness. CEO’s used to make 10 to 15 times what the person working in the warehouse made. Now it is closer to 350 times the warehouse workers wages. Nobody is worth what some are making today at the expense of those doing all the labor. It is also not good for the economy if a worker cannot afford to shop where he or she works.

Private industry disperses power and control into many more hands. That’s a good thing. It is through regulation and taxes that we can utilize private industry to our advantage. In the 60’s and 70’s the tax rate in this country was well over 70% on the rich. Much too high but now they pay tax rates in the 30% range so we lost at least 40% of our tax revenue while a much higher percent of profits migrated to the top as well. The ones at the very top are not paying taxes at all or at a much lower rate than that. Corporate welfare is draining the coffers as well. During the years taxes where at the 70% level we had a strong middle class as well that were paid good wages. We were over 60% to 65% union.

There are many ways to address fixing wage disparages and the unfairness that permeates this country, but first we must get corporate money out of government. This is getting a bit long so I will cut it here.

si shen

THGRRI

Monday, June 30, 2014 8:03 PM (P)

MAGONSDAUGHTER, I have never felt education should be an industry. It is of course because it slays the creativity of our children and disenfranchises far to many from the educational process. Intelligence is diverse, dynamic and distinct. So basing intelligence on academic achievement stigmatizes other forms of achievement as inadequate, leaving many intelligent people thinking they are not. We educate our children to meet the needs of industry and do not teach to our children's individual strengths.

Sir Ken Robinson who I am a big fan of, quoted a poem by W B Yates to his love Maud Gonne at the end of one of his talks. I will share it with you here.

Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half-light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

And every day, everywhere, our children are laying their dreams beneath our feet. So we should tread softly.

This is the third in a trilogy but it speaks to what you say. I think we should do whatever is necessary.

si shen

THGRRI

Monday, June 30, 2014 8:26 PM (P)

As for the rest MAGONSDAUGHTER, smarter people than I will have to suggest adopting different ways of doing things based on other countries. I am not against it, but I am also not versed enough on the intricacies of the way other countries do things. Best I do not preach to extensively and suggest we emulate them, as too many here are fond of doing. I know of many things in this country that are not as they seem when seen through the eyes of someone from elsewhere. I don’t know where you are from but I know here. I have enough background learned from life’s experiences and though our education system to make sound judgments on the goings-on in this country, and what would go a long way to fixing our ills.

Just my opinions of course. But they are sound.

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 12:42 AM (P)

Just my opinions of course. But they are sound.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

I don't even have the time to explain all that is so very very wrong with your 'opinions'. But I'll point out one smidge wrong with your logic. You seem to think that all those countries that have those unAmerican systems were some how created with them. But yanno, in real life, unlike in your fantasy land, until those countries adopted their systems, they weren't 'their' systems, either. And then, they were.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Just my opinions of course. But they are sound.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

I don't even have the time to explain all that is so very very wrong with your 'opinions'. But I'll point out one smidge wrong with your logic. You seem to think that all those countries that have those unAmerican systems were some how created with them. But yanno, in real life, unlike in your fantasy land, until those countries adopted their systems, they weren't 'their' systems, either. And then, they were.

Ok moron, apparently you think I said something I did not. Have an adult read it to you. You really should stay out of any conversation that requires more than a third grade reading level because your response is about things neither said nor implied.

I appreciate you proving once again that you take things out of context and spin them to suggest the author meant or implied something he did not.

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:14 AM (P)

Best I do not preach to [sic] extensively and suggest we emulate them as too many here are fond of doing.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Best I do not preach to [sic] extensively and suggest we emulate them as too many here are fond of doing.

Holly shit stupid. That sentence does not mean anything close to what you said it meant in your last post.

Try again.

si shen

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:23 AM (P)

This thread needs more

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:38 AM (P)

Oh my god what did you do with it's ears? How does it know when you are calling it to come eat?

si shen

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:48 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
As for the rest MAGONSDAUGHTER, smarter people than I will have to suggest adopting different ways of doing things based on other countries. I am not against it, but I am also not versed enough on the intricacies of the way other countries do things. Best I do not preach to extensively and suggest we emulate them, as too many here are fond of doing. I know of many things in this country that are not as they seem when seen through the eyes of someone from elsewhere. I don’t know where you are from but I know here. I have enough background learned from life’s experiences and though our education system to make sound judgments on the goings-on in this country, and what would go a long way to fixing our ills.

Just my opinions of course. But they are sound.

si shen

I was giving examples of what other countries do to demonstrate different models exist that are not 'communist' as you claimed in one of your contradicting posts.

Sometimes simply understanding that things can be done differently without 'tyranny' being fasttracked in to your lives, means that you might consider different ways of doing things.

Over the years I've had many frustrating conversations with Americans about how x y and z can't be done without a country turning into North Korea. It's like the rest of the world doesnt exist.

Or it exists like this

CABUTLERJR

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:53 AM (P)

I would have to agree with you on some things. I think you miss the entire point in that there is no such thing as interest on non organic things. Have you ever seen to Benjemins banging a 50 out or taking their sick 20 to the dr no cause money is organic. Now if in accounting it is a fact that when you create the loan you do not create the interest that has to be paid back. Where does that come from? Look to your right and left in a gathering of 5 and 2 of those people must fail for you to get paid interest on savings investments or if you are the bank your cut. How does this work well you blow up the market with a bubble that puts all this cash into the system then you crash it to get that money back to pass on to savers investors and the banks. That isn't fear stupidity; but for those who believe in our monetary system, or anything else it's an immoral monetary system that every time a loan is written the banker knows you OR SOMEONE ELSE will have to fail for that loan to be paid back. Feeling righteous and a job creator yet?

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 4:13 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
As for the rest MAGONSDAUGHTER, smarter people than I will have to suggest adopting different ways of doing things based on other countries. I am not against it, but I am also not versed enough on the intricacies of the way other countries do things. Best I do not preach to extensively and suggest we emulate them, as too many here are fond of doing. I know of many things in this country that are not as they seem when seen through the eyes of someone from elsewhere. I don’t know where you are from but I know here. I have enough background learned from life’s experiences and though our education system to make sound judgments on the goings-on in this country, and what would go a long way to fixing our ills.

Just my opinions of course. But they are sound.

si shen

I was giving examples of what other countries do to demonstrate different models exist that are not 'communist' as you claimed in one of your contradicting posts.

Sometimes simply understanding that things can be done differently without 'tyranny' being fasttracked in to your lives, means that you might consider different ways of doing things.

Over the years I've had many frustrating conversations with Americans about how x y and z can't be done without a country turning into North Korea. It's like the rest of the world doesnt exist.

Or it exists like this

I'm sorry, I thought I said I was open to adopting some of what other countries do but smarter people than I had to determine what was best. Did I not, or did you not read that part of my post. If you watched the video you would have noticed that I was promoting a British professors approach to schooling and he refers to Norway and other countries as models to emulate. Did I not post that, or did you just not watch it. It is 19 minutes long but well worth it. Perhaps you should go back and look at what I said again. I don't mind if you criticize but you seem to be criticizing me for the wrong reasons. I feel like you believe that I disliked your last few posts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Keep in mind also that a lot of what is wrong with this country is due to corrupt practices and not because the system itself is flawed. Those running it just don't get it right because of outside forces, like business and that's what needs to be addressed not the program or policy itself.

I saw the map. It suggests disappointment with us on your part to say the least. Keep in mind when you think America you are thinking the world. We have 83 different languages spoken in our school system just in the small city I am from.

si shen

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:10 AM (P)

I can't follow your views, probably because they get lost in your snarks. So one minute you are having a go about being communist in response to a post and the next you are agreeing.

Quote:
Keep in mind when you think America you are thinking the world.

No, that was the point of the map. You are NOT the sum of the world, no matter how many languages are spoken there, which BTW, is not a unique feature of the US.

THGRRI

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 5:38 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I can't follow your views, probably because they get lost in your snarks. So one minute you are having a go about being communist in response to a post and the next you are agreeing.

Quote:
Keep in mind when you think America you are thinking the world.

No, that was the point of the map. You are NOT the sum of the world, no matter how many languages are spoken there, which BTW, is not a unique feature of the US.

Why would you be surprised by my assuming you meant some form of communism when you suggested we look at how other countries operate? I just spent the last two days arguing with two about that very topic? Let it go.

On changing our economy by emulating what Finland does with taxing oil. I want to create the energy sources of the future. Oil will be gone in 35, 40 years. Taxing oil is a short term solution. Yes let’s do it some but let’s clean up some of the bullshit in this country for a long term solution as we look forward. By the by, if you think the Middle East is a mess now, just wait.

You suggest we look to Singapore. It has only 5 million people. It runs a parliamentary system set up by the British. They say it is not full of corruption but watch what you say because they frown upon free speech. It is an island and is a major port of call. It’s pretty hard to do poorly under those conditions.

Eric Clapton is retiring from touring and one of his complaints is the rest of the world is becoming just another version of America. His words not mine, and his has been touring the world for 40 years. The problems we Americans have with the rest of the world is the name tag arrogant that you immediately pin on us. I’m sure the rest of the world would not appreciate being labeled with an inferiority complex.

How about I just suggest we got off to a bad start?

si shen

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Why would you be surprised by my assuming you meant some form of communism when you suggested we look at how other countries operate? I just spent the last two days arguing with two about that very topic? Let it go.

Because saying this:

Quote:
No it's not. It's called communism.

in response to my rather mild post is a snark pure and simple. It's pretty much the same as if I called you a fascist because your views sounded right winged. You weren't trying to have a reasoned response, so why pretend that you were.

Quote:
On changing our economy by emulating what Finland does with taxing oil.

It was Norway actually, but carry on.

Quote:
I want to create the energy sources of the future. Oil will be gone in 35, 40 years. Taxing oil is a short term solution. Yes let’s do it some but let’s clean up some of the bullshit in this country for a long term solution as we look forward. By the by, if you think the Middle East is a mess now, just wait.

The Norway solution is to tax primary industries such as oil and natural gas and invest the profit in what is basically a soverign pension fund. That investment is a long term solution for funding public expenditure. It's a better system than inviduals who own mining companies making squillions out of a non renewable resource.

It's not the only solution and it certainly would be sensible for there to be investment renewable energy sources. What makes you think that I am not a fan of renewable energy solutions.

Quote:
You suggest we look to Singapore. It has only 5 million people. It runs a parliamentary system set up by the British. They say it is not full of corruption but watch what you say because they frown upon free speech. It is an island and is a major port of call. It’s pretty hard to do poorly under those conditions.

I suggested you looked at Singapore to find a country that had government ownership of utilities and was not communist, but a thriving bastion of capitalist wealth. So that you can see that things are not black and white. Not as an example of what you should do or become. I'm not a fan of the lack of freedom of speech in that country, but you cant deny that it's thriving. It (and China) demonstrate that the capacity to make profit does not guarantee personal freedom.

I too live under a parliamentary system of government set up by the British. What was your point regarding that? It's actually one of the most stable forms of government in the world.

Quote:
Eric Clapton is retiring from touring and one of his complaints is the rest of the world is becoming just another version of America. His words not mine, and his has been touring the world for 40 years. The problems we Americans have with the rest of the world is the name tag arrogant that you immediately pin on us. I’m sure the rest of the world would not appreciate being labeled with an inferiority complex.

I'm not labelling anything on America, I'm describing how you apparently see the world. Black and white. Good vs Bad. Communism vs Capitalism. I've been attempting to show you a few grey zones.

Quote:
How about I just suggest we got off to a bad start?

Possibly. I'm not convinced that you're not something of a troll here as you seem to like to provoke rather than discuss and your views are all over the place. I'm happy however to give you the benefit of the doubt.

THGRRI

Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:05 AM (P)

I was quick with the communism statement but as I said, I had been arguing two days or more with two whose approach was little else but fantasy and socialism.

Sorry for that but I have posted much in response to you since then that if read should have shown I was being polite and responsive to your posts.

I feel now I have to point out your suggestions from the get go, are about changing our government,( to a parliamentary system ) or raising the tax rates expeditiously to levels not going to be accepted in this country. Therefor they are useless to extrapolate about. If I was a troll I would have pointed that out first off and not been polite about it. Instead I tried to find common ground. I guess I did a poor job of that. I tried because I found your responses, aside from the fact that you could not let the communism statement go, insightful and mostly void of maliciousness.

si shen

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, July 3, 2014 2:29 AM (P)

Strange, I've actually never made suggestions for what your country should do, just point out some alternatives to pure capitalism. If anything, I'm thinking about these changes for my country. However, in order to implement any of the suggestions regarding education, investing tax on natural resources, government ownership of utilities, we'll possibly have to wait until Rupert Murdoch is dead and the dominant paradigm around thses issues shifts.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, July 3, 2014 5:02 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Keep in mind when you think America you are thinking the world. We have 83 different languages spoken in our school system just in the small city I am from.

Wow. Delusions of grandeur?

I regret that I have not had enough time to peruse MDs comments here because she seems to have some good points.

THGRRI

Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:33 AM (P)

One more time Magonsdaughter. You jumped into the middle of what became a heat debate by the fourth page and posted this:

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

Quote:
…My response
You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.

I am trying to suggest to you ways of getting the same results without changing our system to where government gets involved in owing and running profit gaining businesses. Why, because that is a very big change of policy here that is improbable.

Quote:
…You

Yeah, you can accomplish it in a number of ways, but having control over natural resources and being able to reap the profit from natural resources as a people is a good idea.

Quote:
…Me
No it's not. It's called communism.

What I should have said is it resembles socialism which strikes a chord with half the country to such an extent they see it where is does not exist. So that suggestion too is highly improbable. And when you read the definition of socialism out of Merriam Webster which I site below you see I was right. If you look up communism it even lists owning resources such as oil. So, I was not wrong in what I said about it being a form of communism. Yet I still apologized for it to clear the way for you to continue.

Socialism; any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Quote:
…You
Strange, I've actually never made suggestions for what your country should do, just point out some alternatives to pure capitalism. If anything, I'm thinking about these changes for my country. However, in order to implement any of the suggestions regarding education, investing tax on natural resources, government ownership of utilities, we'll possibly have to wait until Rupert Murdoch is dead and the dominant paradigm around thses issues shifts.

Everything from your fist post on has been a suggested alternative so I don’t quite understand your last post here. I now know you are from England due to the Rupert Murdoch comment. Yes we are all stuck with such shall I say, colorful people.

P.S. if you watched or are familiar with Sir Ken Robinson please let me know if you enjoyed the video. I am curious to hear your opinion.

si shen

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 4, 2014 4:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Strange, I've actually never made suggestions for what your country should do, just point out some alternatives to pure capitalism. If anything, I'm thinking about these changes for my country. However, in order to implement any of the suggestions regarding education, investing tax on natural resources, government ownership of utilities, we'll possibly have to wait until Rupert Murdoch is dead and the dominant paradigm around thses issues shifts.

USA was created to throw off the yoke of overbearing rule, and allow citizens the freedom, the choice, and until recently the option of how to live their lives. Government forced and rationed healthcare is the opposite of all this.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:40 AM (P)

Back to the OP topic.
As mentioned in another thread, libtards despise any type of Freedom.
When Republicans (and the preceding Whigs) fought hard to Emancipate (free) the Slaves, libtards and other Democraps fount tooth and nail against it.
When the Republicans fought hard to give Blacks the freedoms to own lands, businesses, and vote, the libtards and other Democraps fought tooth and nail against it.
When the Republicans fought hard to give women the freedom to vote, the libtards and other Democraps fought tooth and nail against it.
When the Republicans fought hard for Civil Rights, the libtardsa nd Democraps fought tooth and nail against it.

The hallmark of the libtard is their complete opposition to FREE market and FREE enterprise, which they know must be quashed under the oppressive thumb of big-government communism and crony capitalism.
The OP tries to paint a picture of capitalism thriving in a vacuum, without FREE market or FREE enterprise. The current exception is Obamacare, of course. Other than that, the FREE market consumer may choose to purchase the product, OR NOT. The "or nots" work against the capitalist's profit calculations, and may render the FREE enterprise unprofitable. Some people may enjoy RJReynolds products. Some may not. Some may think they should be banned. Some may choose not to own stock in the company. Some of the biggest libtard hypocrites in history have made gobs of money off RJR stock while decrying anybody else doing the same.
The FREE market determines whether the FREE enterprise will be a profitable venture into capitalism, regardless of it's ethical position. If enough consumers do not believe the ethical position is distasteful, they can make the enterprise successful. If enough consumers are appalled by the ethical position, the enterprise can fail.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:04 AM (P)

Your understanding of history and especially economics is most amusing. Not everything you state is wrong, but what IS wrong makes you seem very sweet & child-like. Wow, if ONLY it all really did work like that... *sigh*

Sorry, try again. This has been debunked. Once again, you are demonstrably in error, and ensconced in the endless anti-whom-you-hate bullshit. Feel free to go on, and prove yourself more the idiot than you have already (Heh, if that's even possible at this point).
You proved me right here.
Thanks.

1KIKI

Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:14 AM (P)

"without changing our system to where government gets involved in owing and running profit gaining businesses"

That was not MY suggestion. When you can reply to what I posted (instead of the voices in your head) maybe we can have a discussion. Otherwise, I'll treat your posts on this topic as spam.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Once again our resident troll sock puppet, when presented with the analysis of a world-class economist, posted nothing of intelligence or even mild interest in response, and posted absolutely nothing to substantiate the mental diarrhea it tries to pretend is discussion. I really do wonder what passes for a brain in it.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.

Quote:
....1kiki

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

Because it is a distraction from the point and wants to suggest that we should think more like the Chinese and or India because they are becoming more successful and or have better philosophies. Ignoring the fact that they are climbing out of the gutter by riding on our backs, along with Europe. They are doing well because much of our economy (jobs)shifted to those countries. (cheep labor)

When Thomas Freedman asked some India officials what is the United States supposed to do with all it's jobs migrating to India? They responded by saying the United States should do what it always does. Create the jobs of the future.

si shen

Thanks for the link 1kiki. Another reminder of how dim witted you are.

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:34 AM (P)

....1kiki

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

Amazing. This is your second post in this thread where you've attributed a post to me which you yourself posted. Why am I not surprised that the only points you can TRY to make are by lying?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=4
Friday, June 27, 2014 1:36 PM
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

THUGGR

Humanitarian. (snicker)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=5
Who gives a shit?

and the epitome of evidence and reason
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58499&p=29#
1003717
and here is your cite

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, November 8, 2015 2:09 PM (P)

Hungarian Prime Minister accuses billionaire investor George Soros of trying to undermine Europe by supporting refugees travelling from the Middle East

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297431/Hungarian-Prime-Minist
er-accuses-billionaire-investor-George-Soros-trying-undermine-Europe-supporting-refugees-travelling-Middle-East.html

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, November 9, 2015 12:45 PM (P)

It's a present-day Feudal system.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

And Capitalism isn't foolish. It's a shrewd system for the maintenance of a class of people.

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, November 9, 2015 7:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So why do we trust our lives to this stupid and foolish human system?
What? Why do you think? Because RICH FOLK.

I think its because all other systems have failed, unless you count China's current growth as success....ain't that a nightmare from Joss, how the USA and China form the perfect alliance into one universal global government?

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, November 19, 2015 2:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Best system there is, so this thread is stupid and foolish.

all systems are f*cked, Capitalism happened to be the best of a bad bunch

1KIKI

Friday, November 20, 2015 9:19 AM (P)

Capitalism happened to be the best of a bad bunch if you're rich. If you're not, then your money goes to supporting the rich in the style they enjoy, and furthering their plans to get even richer.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

I prefered the sidebars where possibilities were explored.

The media and politics have died off to the lower forms, its all radical left, radical right, wacko race or tribal ideas, politics are backward now

and people are starting to listen to the doomsayer economists again

THGRRI

Friday, July 1, 2016 4:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No, you missed the point:

ELECTRICAL GENERATION IS OWNED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. Not "some", or "most", but ALL. Petroleum purchase and refining, and petrochemicals. Banking. Transportation. The state-owned enterprises (SOEs) comprise the backbone of strategic, heavy, large industry, and when you add provincial and city ownerships, it rises even more. Furthermore, China seems to be reversing course on its liberalization policies

Quote:
A new shorthand has entered common parlance: guojin mintui, meaning the state [sector] advances and the private retreats. It seems to suggest that the state sector's share of the economy is growing, which it is not; non-state businesses are in fact prospering. But the government has been muscling in on business in a variety of ways. It has been tightening its grip on some industries it considers “strategic”, from oil and coal to telecommunications and transport equipment. It has been devising market-access rules that favour state firms. And to the chagrin of private businesses, it has allowed state companies to remain active in a surprising range of palpably non-strategic sectors, from textiles and papermaking to catering. In recent years property development has become a lucrative sideline for government businesses. “The tentacles of state-owned enterprises extend into every nook where profit can be made,” writes Zheng Yongnian of the National University of Singapore.

Of 42 mainland Chinese companies in the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest firms in 2010, all but three were owned by the government. Carl Walter, a Beijing-based investment banker, said in a recent book that getting as many companies as possible into that select group was a matter of deliberate policy. China's own list of the 500 biggest Chinese companies spans 75 industries. In 29 of these not a single private firm makes the grade and in ten others they play only a minor part.

http://www.economist.com/node/18832034

Is it capitalist economy?

China's shadow banking system will soon begin to suck money out of the country's economy at a mind-bending rate, according to analysts at HSBC.

The parasite

The WMP problem is now so huge that it's starting to suck up cash lying around in the Chinese economy like a horde of locusts. Economists use "M2" to describe the part of an economy's money supply that includes cash, checking deposits, and what is known as "near money" — extremely liquid assets like savings deposits, money market mutual funds, and other time deposits.

HSBC points out that M2 growth has settled in around 12% to 15% a year over the last few years. It was 20% while the economy was growing faster. WMPs, HSBC analysts estimate, are growing much faster than that.

"What that means, quite simply, is that money is flowing into WMPs faster than the pace at which it is being created, implying that liquidity is being sucked in from the real economy," the analysts wrote. "In our opinion, the sustainability of such a situation is questionable, and this is potentially one of the key factors that could trigger a systemic risk event down the road."

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-shadow-banking-sucking-cash-out-o
f-the-economy-2016-6

____________________________________________

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, January 13, 2025 6:50 PM (P)

is it true Capitalism or Fake?

So can't run a Subway Train or Hospital

'Crony Capitalism' the bad service Fed loots so no health insurance payments and no infrastructure

David Cross: Why America Sucks at Everything

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3