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.

 

Capitalism is not the only American way.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp





Awesome, you get it!


Of course I get it; what I'm responding to is how you think the evils of monopoly are solely attributed to the actions of Governmental interference!




posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: greencmp





Awesome, you get it!


Of course I get it; what I'm responding to is how you think the evils of monopoly are solely attributed to the actions of Governmental interference!


It's economics, that's why. I never said that the beneficiaries of cartelization are blameless, just that they are entirely dependent upon regulatory constructs to restrict competition.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders




To have your entire life decided by the people who think in memes?


And yet the we have been ruled by those who follow the biggest meme "invade plunder print money bail out banks keep the war machine going at all costs"




Frankly, most people are stupid and don't give a damn about anyone unless they can identify with them somehow


frankly the Oligarchy are selfish and dont give a damn about us sheep!



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




They also depend on the US to play the world's police force so they don't need nearly as much military expenditures.



They depend on no such thing...meddling US policies are US driven for 1 reason...keep the world constantly in strife...to sell more weapons and plunder resources.

No one asked the USA to manufacture lies about Nigerian yellowcake or WMDs to invade Iraq, No one asked the CIA to destabilize Assads Syria through Isis/CIA



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp




I never said that the beneficiaries of cartelization are blameless, just that they are entirely dependent upon regulatory constructs to restrict competition.


But by using the Von Mises quote you implied you were attributing the problems solely to Governmental interference, keep up man, you're starting to look silly



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness




it seems thats the point of the UN countries agreeing to a one world government and they make sure countries trying to modernize other countries do so by humanitarian rules... and those resisting get called rebels and those paid to keep the conflict going terrorists etc. please note terrorist and rebel are interchangible depending on ones side.


By instilling a disproportionate carbon tax to allow 3 world nations to catch up...
You think that the UN will touch or even have the "power" to act on the wealth of the trillionaires who rule the world? You are naive.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: greencmp




I never said that the beneficiaries of cartelization are blameless, just that they are entirely dependent upon regulatory constructs to restrict competition.


But by using the Von Mises quote you implied you were attributing the problems solely to Governmental interference, keep up man, you're starting to look silly


I take it back, you don't get it.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
Having public works, Public transit, mail delivery, police, and fire department are not really part of socialism. Those are shared services done for everyone's balanced benefit in bulk, normally called public infrastructure. These services are basic to orderly society.

Social welfare is the problem, where a direct money transfer solely on one's behalf, who has failed to succeed in society.
Also lots of cheating within the welfare programs.

Taxpayer money going to non-US Citizens, or to US Children who both parents are non-US Citizens.

Social security was originally insurance for US Citizens for after they retire, no being used for a host of other problems. Right now there are 6 million people getting Social Security payments who claim they are 112 years old...Duh! Since they are probably only 2 people actually this age with the rest being dead, this means 6 million minus 2 people getting monthly payments illegally for many years. Our stupid government can not take the simple action to verify and stop making these payments?

Unemployment insurance paid by the worker and worker's employer to provide 6 months of partial salary if laid off. After 6 months this then converts to Welfare.

Welfare is the problem when the worker finds it easier to not work than to work. In the USA, when you consider all available benefits to the welfare recipient, it is equivalent to earning $60,000 per year, so why work. Time to limit all welfare payments or combine into just one payment source.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

At the start of the UN they were working together, the UN lays the framework for countries to work towards their mutual goals in unification. The trade of resources for development doesnt always go smoothly so the invading nation has to comply by UN standards of protocol but rarely seem to admist the chaos and destabilization of tossing out a resistant reigme. they supervise and send in peace keeping forces and humanitarian aid such as te peace corps when things start stabilzing after conflict has settled. the trillionaire class wants the resources it doesnt matter what party in particular just as long as the gravy train of investments dont end.

i could call you ignorant for not knowing this, but assaults on ones character in a debate move things off topic into one of a personal nature. if youve issues with myself thats another topic and honestly its not my issue to ponder as ive no issue with you or what you post.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: chuckk


Having public works, Public transit, mail delivery, police, and fire department are not really part of socialism. Those are shared services done for everyone's balanced benefit in bulk, normally called public infrastructure. These services are basic to orderly society.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? You just called it "Public" "society" and "shared services". Call it whatever you like, the differences are semantic.

I agree its not supposed to be like this. Government should be way more limited and not have its mits into everything.

Locals can fix roads, garden and guard quite well. I'd rather pay my neighbor to fix potholes on our street than some bored bureaucratic road crew that never shows up and does lousy work.
edit on 29-12-2015 by intrptr because: change and spelling

edit on 29-12-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

agreed, the issue becomes your neighbor would have to be buddy buddy with someone or make some deal to insure they get the contract to fill the pothole. this is where corruption and rigging the game comes into play... the fair play of competition is removed creating a monopoly on the system, with a monopoly one can define the terms in which these services are delivered... and thats when profit rules quality. as thats getting the job done cheaply as possible with many times unqualified labor to do it properly or the cheaper materials so inferior its impossible to perform the service properly.

an example would be haliburton getting privy to build contracts, of course once that is known time to run damage control. but in politics and government it isnt about who you are until election time but who you know. this is also why obama care caught a thorn in its side... every available insurance was supposed to be able to compete in a free market to provide services... and in many states thats the case, but resistance to allow competition in every state hit and insurance companies were quick to lobby seeing a chance for more profit by limiting the coverage availability options in their state.

so even under a social program theres a chance for capitalist corruption looking to monopolize the services offered. this is the biggest problem when privatizing government services... the agency that wins the bid is a crap shoot for services offered and the quality delivered, and once they have the contract it might as well be called a monopoly as cost overuns do not void the contract. the only option to take their place is to buy them out.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: SPECULUM
Because its a Winning Spirit

None of this makes your original statement true.


Migrate to your favorite Socialist country, then you can be happy...The US cant afford you



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SPECULUM

I'm not american and I'm also not a socialist so, that also falls as flat as your other posts.
edit on 29-12-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ChuckNasty

All of those countries have single payer national health care, and many of the socialistic benefits USA currently has.. They're far more socialist than the USA. Thank you for proving my point, socialist=better quality of life.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: ChuckNasty

All of those countries have single payer national health care, and many of the socialistic benefits USA currently has.. They're far more socialist than the USA. Thank you for proving my point, socialist=better quality of life.


Still not Socialist. Thanks for playing. The USA has a current system for people who cannot afford healthcare to receive it free. In those countries, the payment comes out of your payroll.

Those countries, AGAIN, are not socialist. They provide a good lifestyle for their populace.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: M5xaz


so·cial·ism (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


Any of Various Theories, it says. Thats somewhat disingenuous. Large cities aren't theoretical, just about every country has them. People don't "collectively own them", either. Thats a ruse, people don't actually "own" the city sidewalks, just use them collectively and their combined tax pays for their upkeep. How is that different from a "collective" in a "communist" country? The difference is what we are taught. Our cities our collectives our social infrastructure is 'better' than theirs.

The big corporations own everything in the city and the people pay for it. Most people rent, pay tax and fees to do anything.



Sigh.
Looking to argue with the dictionary definition now, since it puts socialism in a bad light ?
Reading comprehension issues ?
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy"

This has nothing to do with cities and their component parts (your example: sidewalks)

The above standard definition is that Socialism encompasses all theories where the means of production (ex: factories) and distribution (ex: stores, trucking, shipping) is owned by the State.

Something to be avoided, based on documented historical outcomes. It has never worked, anywhere.

America and the West in general is not socialist, by definition.
What is it you don't understand ?
edit on 29-12-2015 by M5xaz because: add

edit on 29-12-2015 by M5xaz because: add



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ChuckNasty

Okay, for the record, I'm not talking about government ownership of land and business. I'm talking about democratic socialism and advocating for tighter restrictions on businesses, including government-owned monopolies for certain services. THESE ARE practices in nations you mentioned.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: ChuckNasty

Okay, for the record, I'm not talking about government ownership of land and business. I'm talking about democratic socialism and advocating for tighter restrictions on businesses, including government-owned monopolies for certain services. THESE ARE practices in nations you mentioned.


Pretty sure you were talking about socialistic states and the faults of a free market. If you need me to quote your own words, I can.

So you now applaud the nations that are a free market (aka capitalist) but adopt a welfare attitude as your goal government? Please, make up your mind on what you want in the world.

I believe this is how anything 'crony' happens. People with thoughts like yours..



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ChuckNasty

My apologies, let me explain so I can be more clear.

Let's refer to my original title "Capitalism is not the only American way. "

Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Now, free market-- an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

Every first world nation has systems in place that go contrary to these definitions, and the nations with the highest quality of living have systems in place that go beyond what the USA has in place. I am advocating we emulate countries with better GDP's, quality of life, better education, better life expectancy, lower pollution.. etc. - To do so we would have to further put in place systems in which go against the above definitions. We have many Americans which seem to blindly advocate for unrestricted, uncontrolled, unregulated markets without realizing such mentalities of a free capitalistic market brought us to the Oligarchy we had today. Where billionaires exist, politicians are bought.

I see far too many threads/posts that advocate that capitalism is the only way for us - But it hasn't been for years, and likely never will be - So I guess my title could have also stated " Capitalism is not/was not/should not be the American way"

Far too many people don't realize just what they would lose, what things would go wrong if a true capitalistic/free market society existed. Huge monopolies over things like roads, prisons, police, no FDA, USDA, etc...... No thanks.
( Though I do admit I don't trust the FDA/USDA anyways, but without them - companies could put whatever poison they want in whatever foods )



Also, I don't know the word for what I'm explaining is. Socialistic and Democratic socialist are what I've seen used, but I do not advocate the state owning very many businesses, nor much land.

edit on 30-12-2015 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness


so even under a social program theres a chance for capitalist corruption looking to monopolize the services offered.

Which kind of destroys the idea of difference between the two systems. In both cases a chain of bureaucracy ends up adding to cost, cheapening product and potential corruption. Regardless at the end is still some guy with a shovel and some gravel.

Keeping it local keeps the quality and competition local for the best materials, quality of work and the cheapest price.

Governments aren't really necessary, their only job being providing for the common defense so I can get about my business. Washington is thousands of miles from here, somebody tell them to mind their own business.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join