It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

page: 36
37
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
They don't have to compete. They can do something else. But what they did was pass laws that makes everything more expensive, like a tax.

That wasn't the question. The question was, could they compete?

If the answer was no, then, there was a monopoly.


I don't know, can a buggy manufacturer compete with an auto mobile manufacturer?

Anyone who invested in the necessary capital (a company) or got others to invest in the necessary capital (a corporation) could compete.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You have confidence in competition.

I have confidence in greed.

Only one of these philosophies has proven itself.


Greed fuels competition. Greed is good. Greed is motivation. Greed keeps a corporation from doing stupid things like trying to undercut competition in a free market.


This debate is over as far as I am concerned.

What I have highlighted above proves one of 3 things.

1. That you don't know what you are talking about, because standard oil was loosing money to undercut competition, which is why the government intervention to make the practice illegal came to be.


If Standard Oil had put everybody out of business, as soon as SO raised the price and/or cut production, new companies would come back into the market and SO would have spent millions of dollars for nothing.

Undercutting in order to charge more and reduce output isn't possible in an unregulated market.

Most likely Standard Oil would have kept its price low, even if it was the only kerosene producer in the country.





2. You are naive and don't understand what several of us are explaining. And you are willfully ignorant because you are afraid of government control.


You haven't explained it, you have only asserted that " monopolies always happen", over and over, and never addressed the problem of new competitors coming into an over priced and undersupplied market.




3. You are arguing for the sake of argument.


Feels like homework.




Regardless of the reason I am finished debating you in this thread, and I would recommend the others take the same approach.

Unless you are part of the 1%. Without controling greed you will become controlled by the greed of others.



Greed is not magic. Greed is only motivation and all actions it initiates are subject to market competition which always yields the same out come, lower prices for more goods.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Both your previous posts miss the point.

What you had previously said couldn't happen actually did happen and you seem to be for it.

You seem to be rooting for a company known to employ fraud, political corruption and physical violence.

That is why I don't buy into that rhetoric.
edit on 15-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Both your previous posts miss the point.

What you had previously said couldn't happen actually did happen and you seem to be for it.

You seem to be rooting for a company known to employ fraud, political corruption and physical violence.

That is why I don't buy into that rhetoric.


Like I already wrote



First define monopoly. I take your definition to mean, a company that charges more than the product is worth, (and I will give you), and cuts production to increase the demand.

A single company that raises prices and cuts production will ALWAYS suffer new competitor companies. The high prices and known demand for the product means that new companies will make sales and profit for sure. The single company (your definition of monopoly) is compelled to keep its production high and prices low in order to prevent new startup competition.

The "monopoly" you rightly abhor is actually a cartel. When all of the competitors in an industry collude to cut production and raise prices the situation is called a cartel. Since cartels need all members to follow the rules of the crony club, and not try to sell more than their allotment, the cartel needs a government to pass laws that keep the cartelists in line. All of the "monopolies" that get away with unfair business practices are actually cartels that use the government.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


I would very much like to read a rebuttal of that above. All of you have ignored several iterations of it.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: makemap

That isn't communism if the government controls everything. It is then Fascism. To be honest China is a mix. At least their not like the US kicking you out of homes for no reason and you have to fend for yourself.


It isn't?... You actually think that a government can exist where millions of people all have a say and are part of a government?... The claims of socialism and communism that "the people will rule" is a lie... The people as a whole can never rule. It would be anarchy...

Communism and socialism can be envisioned in ant nests. They all follow one leader, or a small group of leaders and individualism doesn't matter. All those ants would die for their queen, or queens like socialists and communists would die for their cause and are willing to keep a country in constant war...

Corporations don't thrive on capitalism... They thrive on monopoly, not on a free market where no one has monopoly over resources...



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

No , it's a 9 lettered Word that Means Tyranny .



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

All of you have ignored several iterations of it.

First define monopoly. My definition is a single provider in a given area.

It isn't so rigid so as to force government to be in on it.

But, what does that have to do with your apparent approval of certain companies in bed with government while at the same time denouncing the same in name of freedom?



edit on 15-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

All of you have ignored several iterations of it.

First define monopoly. My definition is a single provider in a given area.

It isn't rigid so as to force government to be in on it.

But, what does that have to do with your apparent approval of certain companies in bed with government while at the same time denouncing the same in name of freedom?




Monopoly means what the user intends it to mean, as with all words, as per the dictionary, the definition is assigned by usage.

Monopoly includes one business currently and solely providing a good or service, the only company in the economy providing a good or service. If you mean more than that you can and should say so, for the sake of good communication.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't see the problem. You repeated what I just posted. In no dictionary definition of the word will you find the area or reach which a monopoly must encompass.

The gang that sells drugs in a park and uses force to keep anyone else from peddling there goods in that park has a monopoly of the drug sales in that park. No government there.

You can scale it up and it will continue to apply in both legit and illegal examples. Of course you argue beyond that point to because it makes your argument seem valid.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't see the problem. You repeated what I just posted. In no dictionary definition of the word will you find the area or reach which a monopoly must encompass.

The gang that sells drugs in a park and uses force to keep anyone else from peddling there goods in that park has a monopoly of the drug sales in that park. No government there.

You can scale it up and it will continue to apply in both legit and illegal examples. Of course you argue beyond that point to because it makes your argument seem valid.


The government puts the sales in the park, instead of a business establishment, by making them illegal.

The government is in everything, monetarily or behaviorally.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Did you nab any straws?

Like I said, the same applies to any legit business.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You seem to be impervious to logic. If competition against global corporations who control the majority of the worlds commodities was effective I would imagine a much different picture than what reality shows us.


Which corporations control the world?

A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?
www.internationalbusinessguide.org...
Another link that includes a few more top global corporations
www.dividend.com...
Several beautiful pictures of the problem
sploid.gizmodo.com...


The companies who own the majority of the worlds assets will keep getting bigger by buying up all competition. Since competition is not good for shareholders profits.

Unless of course the shareholders have already agreed to a set number of companies, families, owning the world.

In your world competition will somehow magically end the control that already exists. Most of this consolidation has happened in the last 100 years. Given another 100 years the corporations listed in the link will go from 50% ownership of the world to 100% ownership of the world.

Your version of a competitive utopia is far from reality. Greed rules the day, and greed does not favor competition.

Add - If you want to understand what I mean by monopolies controlling the world click the links, I dont have any motivation to continue this conversation.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You seem to be impervious to logic. If competition against global corporations who control the majority of the worlds commodities was effective I would imagine a much different picture than what reality shows us.


Which corporations control the world?

A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?
www.internationalbusinessguide.org...


The companies who own the majority of the worlds assets will keep getting bigger by buying up all competition. Since competition is not good for shareholders profits.

Unless of course the shareholders have already agreed to a set number of companies, families, owning the world.

In your world competition will somehow magically end the control that already exists. Most of this consolidation has happened in the last 100 years. Given another 100 years the corporations listed in the link will go from 50% ownership of the world to 100% ownership of the world.

Your version of a competitive utopia is far from reality. Greed rules the day, and greed does not favor competition.



Law rules the day, and law favors the strongest political forces.

Law is preventing competition, or more fundamentally, politicians use law to prevent completion to the extent that is expedient and possible. All politicians are Socialist/Collectivist/Statist/Progressives. And Conservatives also since the multinationals are now part of our heritage.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


Law rules the day, and law favors the strongest political forces.

Law is preventing competition, or more fundamentally, politicians use law to prevent completion to the extent that is expedient and possible. All politicians are Socialist/Collectivist/Statist/Progressives. And Conservatives also since the multinationals are now part of our heritage.



Money rules the day. And money favors those who have the most money.

Uncontrolled Capitalism will end with the exact same picture depicted in those links, unless laws prevent such mega corporations from existing.

Laws have only sped up the inevitable. Your utopian capitalism is not impervious to money monopolies.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


Law rules the day, and law favors the strongest political forces.

Law is preventing competition, or more fundamentally, politicians use law to prevent completion to the extent that is expedient and possible. All politicians are Socialist/Collectivist/Statist/Progressives. And Conservatives also since the multinationals are now part of our heritage.



Money rules the day. And money favors those who have the most money.

Uncontrolled Capitalism will end with the exact same picture depicted in those links, unless laws prevent such mega corporations from existing.

Laws have only sped up the inevitable. Your utopian capitalism is not impervious to money monopolies.



Capitalism is not impervious, capitalism is productive.

There is no other context for capitalism than production.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Capitalism is not impervious, capitalism is productive.

There is no other context for capitalism than production.



You should be a politician. Your ability to say nothing while sounding like something is very political.



Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned. Private firms and proprietorships usually operate in order to generate profit
en.m.wikipedia.org...


Capitalism is about production for profit. Which is exactly what I have said. You seem to have missed the part about making money.

To make the highest profits in the capitalist marketplace private companies will do whatever they can to eliminate competition. Since capitalism is about production for private profit.

In an unregulated free market capitalist system competition will be cannibalized by money monopolies until you are left with a consolidated marketplace that looks exactly like the current marketplace.

I only continue this debate with you for the sake of others who may be following. I am using your inaccurate portrayal of capitalism to provide further evidence that I have a wealth of understanding when it comes to the current marketplace.

The end of free market capitalism will always be money monopolies controlling commodities.

You have failed to do anything but provide inaccurate rhetoric to argue against sound logic based on the real world.


edit on 16-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

You conveniently avoided answering the questions which I posed in my post. You're skirting the questions because they deal with the reality of what you are proposing. Go back and read the questions again. Try to think out of the box.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't understand what a "wealth cap" is. How do you determine how much a person is allowed to earn? And where do you find these altruistic individuals who 1) have the intellectual and creative wherewithal to create the wealth; 2) who are not driven by the natural human condition of competition and 3) who agree to have no say as to how much they earn?

I think you forget human nature. The "community" ideal is nice to talk about over a martini. But as I asked before, what country has successfully transformed their people into a society of robots who don't resent being "capped" on their production.

As for billionaires, it's just a matter of scale. It used to be millionaires. In the future it will be trillionaires (I think there are few around already). Who's going to tell them they can't have their $250M yacht, their Gulfstream, and 10 Rolls Royces in their garages??

That's the fundamental problem with trickle down socialism. At the top you must have a small group of dictatorial ideologues who have the means to enforce the rules of the "community".



I said I don't care about the greedy who think they need to make 25 times more than the lowest worker. You seem to think there is only a handful of intellectuals capable of leading production. Your assumption is wrong.

Once a person reaches the wealth cap that person may loose motivation but it doesn't make any difference. There are millions of motivated people who are in the 99% who are perfectly capable of filling the void of the 1% who become unmotivated. Even if the number of max wage workers reaches 10% there would still be pleanty of intellectualls in the 90% that would keep pushing production forward.

I would prefer 2000 motivated people making 500,000 who become lazy once they reach the cap over one greedy power hungry billionaire.

Your argument for intellectual facisim is completely invalid. We don't need a small group of elitists making policies. We need a small group of intellectually gifted elected officials guiding us according to the will of the people.



The reality is people are not equal. They never have been and never will be. Some are smart, some are less smart and others are downright dumb. There can never be income equality because income is primarily dictated by the quality of your brain, the skills you develop and how hard you want to work. Throw in a little luck and you too can be a Steve Jobs!


I don't believe people are equal. But I don't believe anyone is 25 times superior than another human being.

I don't care how smart someone is. I don't care that someday I might be able to join the 1%. I am not infatuated with the 1% like you seem to be. I have no desire to keep up with the Kardashians I am positive that all of Steve Jobs inventions would have become reality even if Jobs himself become unmotivated after he made 50 million in royalties off his first invention.

Your elitists ideology that the world has such a limited number of genius inventors who will push production forward is quite ridiculous. I believe that inventions are not unique but inevitable, and many very intelligent people have drawn the same conclusion as me.



No country has ever taxed their way to prosperity. Confiscatory tax policy has only incentivized the wealthy to find havens for asset protection. Look at the Kennedys - the famous liberals who would tax a bus driver to death, but who wove a cocoon around their wealth to protect it. www.forbes.com...

A flat tax with no deductions and no work-arounds would go a long way to equalizing the playing field. GE filed a 57,000 page tax return in 2011 on $14Billion in profit and paid practically no tax. How does that work?? You don't need a revolution to fix this type of problem. What you need is a simplification of tax law with the proper enforcement.


No country has ever limited the wealth of the top 1%. Every country has fallen to imperialism or elitists facisim. Eliminate the asinine wealth of the 1% and there will be no power hungry elitists who wish to use the government as a tool to increase their wealth.

America has become a facisist corpocracy because of the idiotic wealth in the hands of 1%.

Hower I do agree with a flat tax without loopholes. Take the billionaires out of the system and we take away the motivation for billionaires to pay off politicians who create policies that ensure loopholes for the 1%. It is possible to eliminate loopholes and tax havens.

Your example of the bus driver is a nice attempt to cause the middle class to fear socialism. Every nation must incorporate some aspects of socialism to build their infrastructure. Parts of socialism are unavoidable. Which is why in the OP I said we need to find the right balance between socialism and capitalism.

You seem to be advocating intellectual social facisim in the hands of intellectual elitists. I prefer democratic socialism to support the will of the people. Historically elitists facisist socialism has destroyed the middle class. What I am advocating will return the power to the 99% who represent the bus drivers.



I understand the frustration of Americans. We have a dysfunctional government intentionally designed by the crooks we elect and send to Washington. But reverting to an ideology, or some derivative there of, which has a notorious history of failure is not the answer.


As another poster pointed out the only form of democratic socialism with a pure democracy was found in ancient Greece. They did not fail they lost a war and fell under imperialism.

To think the average man cannot become educated enough to understand the basics of law and therefore become an educated voter is intellectual elitism at it's finest.

Your love affair with intellectual elitism and your infatuation with the lifestyles of the rich and famous is the problem in this world, and always has been.

We don't need self-righteous elitists. We don't need billionaires with an insatiable desire for wealth and power.

We need a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Our founding fathers were men of genius well beyond their time. Democratic socialism with a pure democracy worked on a small scale in ancient Greece. With technology it will work on a national scale and a global scale if we ever get to that point.

If you have any more questions that you don't think have been covered in the 36 pages of this thread please let me know. I can argue my ideology against anyone who supports any form of elitism.

Elitism has no place in a democratic nation. Elitism by any name is fascism.


edit on 16-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

These are the posts I'm referring to linked below. Crux of the question is how do you prevent the accumulation of wealth?
How do you plan to maintain the "cap" to prevent people from becoming the evil, greedy billionaires you have declared worthless to society?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Isurrender73

These are the posts I'm referring to linked below. Crux of the question is how do you prevent the accumulation of wealth?
How do you plan to maintain the "cap" to prevent people from becoming the evil, greedy billionaires you have declared worthless to society?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



If you can't find the answers to those questions in my replies to you, either your questions are too ambiguous for me to understand exactly what you are asking, or you don't understand the answers I have already provided to you.

Add -

Wall street is a joke and needs to be reworked from the ground up. It has been used to manipulate the markets. All crashes are organized by those who benefit from the crashes. Sell high buy low. Easy for the elitists to do when a small group owns half of wall street and can manipulate the system in their favor.

Usury is not sustainable in any financial system that wishes to be sustainable. Usury creates massive inflation and a shortage of available currency. Which means the elimination of the Fed and private banking.

I can't see anything else I did not answer.



edit on 16-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join