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.

 

What Capitalism Isn't

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by reticledc
 


I know a lot of people love to claim that fascism is a rightwing ideology, but how can that be true when fascism is about Socialist ideals?


Fascism has historically taken multiple forms, including both left and right-wing ideology in each. However, the vast majority of ideology, thought and support behind Fascism has been right-wing. This is a simple historical fact. Please refer to more complex/accurate forms of the political spectrum (like the Political Compass) for a proper division of right wing, left wing, libertarian and authoritarian.



The only difference between fascism and true socialism is that in fascism the corporations own everything meanwhile in socialism the state owns everything.

In both fascism, and socialism individual liberty/freedom is taken away "for the good of the many".


Actually your perception of Socialism is skewed. The main tenets of ACTUAL Socialism call for WORKER ownership of the means of production. This means that instead of big boss man controlling and profiting off of the labors of the many (as in a top-down corporation), the workers Democratically control/profit from a business each with an equal stake, voice, and benefit. For example, a Cooperative is a fantastic system that can be superior to top-down, hierarchical forms of business/economics.

As for Socialism in the form of government services, well let's be real, there are some very common-sense social services that really do help the masses with a better deal COLLECTIVELY than individually. Look at many of the Scandinavian countries, they enjoy free health care, free/cheap college, paid maternity leave, etc. all while enjoying great economic prosperity and overall freedom/dignity for its citizens. Socialism can be implemented in ultimately/undeniably good ways within the system of nation-states so long as they exist. Such services are a way of helping to balance out the inherent/unjust inequities within our state and market systems.




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


No, capitalism doesn't include any of those things.

Fascism does.

Communism does.

Capitalism does not.



Come on man, you are so damn religious it clouds your thinking.

The Old west was FILLED with towns that were vastly controlled by one person or entity,
due to volume of wealth and self governance.

Answer this as you always seem to dodge my hypotheticals

What would you do if I owned all the water rights in your territory and then mandated that if you want my water you have to deposit all of your money in my bank + buy my electricity and use plumbers that I choose to service your plumbing needs?

You are a smart person, but like many, you are unwilling to examine your doctrine
free of prejudice. Many people have made so fairly logical points and your response is simply to ignore these points. Its not becoming of you, maybe I expect too much...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

No it isn't. Capitalism the private ownership of the means of production. It claims to give you 'free-markets' but really it doesn't.


Oh yes it is...the problem is that power has been given to a select few companies only and that is NOT part of a true Capitalist system...



Originally posted by ANOK
The claim that fascism is not right wing is BS, created by the new right to dissociated itself with its history.


In fact it has been the new "left" who created the whole illusion that fascism is a rightwing ideology...

Rightwing ideology = LIMITED/SMALL GOVERNMENT

Fascism = Corporations own everything including the government...

Fascism has a central authority controlling everything, and that my friend is a Socialist idea.

You can't have a small/limited government in fascism.




Originally posted by ANOK
This is not quite true.

The 'state' is any system that allows one class of people to control another. So fascism and capitalism, by that definition, have a state system, as the capitalists need to control the working class labour pool in order to maintain their method of income, which is derived from our labour using their means of production.


Wrong, in a true capitalist system the person who produces something owns it... There is no central authority in a true capitalist system because people own what they produce...



Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism on the other hand is simply the workers ownership of the means of production, and no state system is required.


...Oh, that must be why every true Socialist state has shown us throughout history the truth of Socialism/communism right?..... From the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea etc etc... I guess you must be right....

and please do not even try to claim none of them were truly Socialist/Communist because that would only show you to be another "new left" who doesn't want to accept what history has shown us...



Originally posted by ANOK
In the capitalist system, when the means of production are owned by the few, it means the many have to work for the few to acquire the resources they need.



...Except that once again that is not capitalism.... You are confusing capitalism with Socialism/communism...

In socialism/communism, as in fascism, the means of production is owned by a few WHO CLAIM TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, meanwhile in capitalism if you harvest something in your land, or you invent or produce something you own it...




Originally posted by ANOK
Since the industrial revolution took hold the worlds populations have been subservient to the capitalists as they created an industrial system that created wealth for them, and took away the autonomy of working people and their ability to produce the good they need for themselves.


I guess that's why we don't find sweat shops in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and every other Socialist/Communist country right?...

Wrong, it has been socialist/communist systems who have taken advantage of the people.

It is true that there are corporations who have taken advantage of "socialism/communism" but if those "socialist/communist" systems didn't exist most of the sweat shops around the world would cease to exist...




Originally posted by ANOK
This is your misunderstanding. No one is going to take anything from you, in fact you will gain because in the capitalist system all the profit made by your labour goes to the capitalist. In the socialist labour model the profit made by your labour would go to you.


It is not my misunderstanding because unlike you I actually LIVED socialism/communism meanwhile you are swallowing the cool-aid given to you...




Originally posted by ANOK
Nope, again no state system required for socialism, or communism. Socialism was an idea created by the working class as a direct alternative to capitalism during the industrial revolution.


Oh boy... again as shown by every socialist/communist nation around the world you are wrong sorry to say...

In socialism/communism a few people in power CLAIM to represent the people when they don't...

Again, in any large society there is ALWAYS a need for a government, and when you give that government ALL POWER, the people are left with none...



Originally posted by ANOK

You're partly right with fascism, but you seem to miss that fascism requires capitalism to work as its economic system. It incorporates nationalism and corporations. It's a capitalist economy with a heavy emphasis on authority.


I am sorry to say that once again you are wrong.

In capitalism if you produce something you own it...

In fascism if you produce something the corporation/government owns it... hence fascism does not need capitalism.

In fascism the corporation/government USES capitalism so that the rich elite become richer by selling the services and products that the workers make or provide.

Where is it that the rich elites who own corporations go to for cheap labor?... for the most part they go to SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST nations...

A few rich people who take advantage of the situation in other countries does not define capitalism...

[edit on 22-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Come on man, you are so damn religious it clouds your thinking.

The Old west was FILLED with towns that were vastly controlled by one person or entity,
due to volume of wealth and self governance.

Answer this as you always seem to dodge my hypotheticals

What would you do if I owned all the water rights in your territory and then mandated that if you want my water you have to deposit all of your money in my bank + buy my electricity and use plumbers that I choose to service your plumbing needs?

You are a smart person, but like many, you are unwilling to examine your doctrine
free of prejudice. Many people have made so fairly logical points and your response is simply to ignore these points. Its not becoming of you, maybe I expect too much...



Actually that's a myth.

The "wild west" had less crime over the course of its existence than most major cities have in the course of a year.

In the "wild west" homesteading was used to stake property rights, and systems of PRIVATE LAW GOVERNMENT were established until government moved in.

You should learn the real history of the wild west, its an eye opener.

Don't believe the lies you are told in public school.




Unless you could prevent me from drilling a well on my own land, I don't know how you could own all the water rights. In a capitalist system, private property rights are respected and resources are homesteaded. I own my land, therefore I can put a well on it if I want to.



[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Socialism and Fascism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.

To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's Fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not. Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism. Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similars can be seen in a common definition of fascism: "A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).
...

www.lawrence.edu...

And that my friend is NOT capitalism.

Unfortunately a select few have taken over, but this does not define capitalism.

The idea of a centralized power comes from socialism, and it CLAIMS to represent the people...and a lot of people have fallen for it unfortunately...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Rightwing ideology = LIMITED/SMALL GOVERNMENT

Fascism = Corporations own everything including the government...

Fascism has a central authority controlling everything, and that my friend is a Socialist idea.

You can't have a small/limited government in fascism.


What you and many fail to recognize is that a small government can be just as tyrannical as a large one, think about ALL the kings of history, presumably a one man government, very small. As far as I can gather, the idea is to transfer power from government to capital, by my simple imagination this would allow wealthy folks to structure the system in their favor and decide upon things that are currently governmental matters.

Replacing elected officials with successful individuals and their business whims seems like a way to consolidate power. IF you consider a business, One man can typically control the entire enterprise and activity of all the people under them. What I hear so often is turn/return America into a business state, black and white, money is law, dictates law which modifies and regulates everyones existence. What seems to be missed is this link, business is based upon a few individuals dictating to the rest in the association with the goal to perpetuate more and more control upon a market share of capital. Presumably the people with this control, will work to gain more control and
compound more and more Money = more Control.

Business is hierarchal in nature, but many of you do not seem to imagine that this natural progression and hierarchy will find its way into governance of people. In my youth I was involved in the black market extensively, what I saw consistently was a whole
lot of control held by a few people. A quite alliance and a ready supply of money loving hopefuls made this power virtually unbreakable and unquestionable. And OP talks of private law enforcement
and he is anti fascist
- good god man. I knew a fellow
who was visited by "private police", sentence and penalty was dictated by those who hired the "police".

Maybe you guys fully know this but hide it, IDK, it becomes very hard to believe that so many are so certain and so quick to dismiss others.


Just look at prison, that is mankind living by the rules of nature and the tenets of raw capitalism. It is funny because they are in a very socialist environment, but their very nature and tendency is to let do-



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Capitalism, socialism, facism, communism and all the other isms are the same type of economy flying under a different banner. Under any existing economy we have to work for money to buy food and shelter. This puts the acquisition of money ahead of our most basic human needs: the needs of our body. All existing economies turn these needs into debts.

You cannot build a just, sane society based on this idea of work-to-eat. As long as we have work-to-eat culture we will be exploited and enslaved. The -isms only differ on how honest the leaders are being about it. A fascist dicatorship is brutally honest about our exploitation and slavery. In a capitalist economy they have to be a little trickier and finesse it. Socialist economic reforms are passed to solve engineered economic crises because our leaders realize we've reached the limits of capitalism. Instead of going back to the good old days of capitalism how about we forge ahead and try something a little different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red

Come on man, you are so damn religious it clouds your thinking.

The Old west was FILLED with towns that were vastly controlled by one person or entity,
due to volume of wealth and self governance.

Answer this as you always seem to dodge my hypotheticals

What would you do if I owned all the water rights in your territory and then mandated that if you want my water you have to deposit all of your money in my bank + buy my electricity and use plumbers that I choose to service your plumbing needs?

You are a smart person, but like many, you are unwilling to examine your doctrine
free of prejudice. Many people have made so fairly logical points and your response is simply to ignore these points. Its not becoming of you, maybe I expect too much...



Actually that's a myth.

The "wild west" had less crime over the course of its existence than most major cities have in the course of a year.

In the "wild west" homesteading was used to stake property rights, and systems of PRIVATE LAW GOVERNMENT were established until government moved in.

You should learn the real history of the wild west, its an eye opener.

Don't believe the lies you are told in public school.




Unless you could prevent me from drilling a well on my own land, I don't know how you could own all the water rights. In a capitalist system, private property rights are respected and resources are homesteaded. I own my land, therefore I can put a well on it if I want to.



[edit on 22-7-2010 by mnemeth1]


I have, I was fascinated by it all, I still wear cowboy boots


I guess you advocate for a world where emotion, money dictates justice and recourse.
Columbian necktie or burnt at the stake same difference my friend


P.S I was to busy capitalizing on the second amendment + beaver to pay attention in school

Edit to add- I know your self proclaimed profession, I doubt you have a large plot of
land at your disposal. The buying up of water and the intentional fouling up of water is
not uncommon in third world nations BTW. Companies use this business wedge to keep
locals in control - including the systematic destruction and buying out of the little guys business's to ensure the large company maintains control. Ecuador and Columbia come to mind...

Utopian ideals are in the eyes of the beholder, rarely does reality adhere to speculation. Being that business is blasted in my face 24/7 I think it is fair to conclude
that the end goal is to receive as much of my money as possible. I do not have the resources to drill, go solar, raise cattle, cotton... I also know I am already a slave to money and money effectively dictates my freedom, I guess I do not have as much faith in the whole concept.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Excellent breakdown OP. I would just say that all that would be necessary in the system you espouse is a court system and penal type system to settle disputes and to punish those that break the one law.

To not harm another or to not infringe on another's right to LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY.

Oh, and for those out there that actually think roads are built by government, private land developers pay for ANY necessary road and utility improvements in the US. Sorry to tell you. Almost EVERYTHING is paid for by private companies or individuals.

Unless of course you are talking about the corporations that bribe your government to rip off the taxpayer.

I am not going to argue any of the other STUFF you assume the government pays for.

Here is the answer, the government does not produce anything! They steal it!



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Excellent breakdown OP. I would just say that all that would be necessary in the system you espouse is a court system and penal type system to settle disputes and to punish those that break the one law.

To not harm another or to not infringe on another's right to LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY.

Oh, and for those out there that actually think roads are built by government, private land developers pay for ANY necessary road and utility improvements in the US. Sorry to tell you. Almost EVERYTHING is paid for by private companies or individuals.

Unless of course you are talking about the corporations that bribe your government to rip off the taxpayer.

I am not going to argue any of the other STUFF you assume the government pays for.

Here is the answer, the government does not produce anything! They steal it!


Isn't it funny though, OP backs the Repugs, who use the government and its institutions
to play blocker for the private institutions who Steal your money, grow the government
and poison the government
you are so big on private this and that that you fail to see this basic dichotomy End. Ah artificial creations of the government have the right to
the un limited funding of elections... It fits the narrative so well, as does drill baby drill,
all closer to your vision of freedom, but sometimes an inch is a world away.

While you wait for your Thunderdome, your unquestioning support of all that is private ensures everything you hate. You are not big enough to see that, god my friend I have grown ten fold since our fine conversations last winter... The corporation and its authority is directly supported by your ideology my friend, the corporation and its feed station is directly supported by my ideology. Just step back and watch how much you praise and defend "private" notions, is there any room to see the whole picture?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





While you wait for your Thunderdome, your unquestioning support of all that is private ensures everything you hate. You are not big enough to see that, god my friend I have grown ten fold since our fine conversations last winter... The corporation and its authority is directly supported by your ideology my friend, the corporation and its feed station is directly supported by my ideology.


It is always fascinating to me how the corporation is brought into discussions of capitalism, and almost always used as a device to vilify capitalism. While there is such a term as private corporation:


Incorporated firm whose shares are not publicly traded, and are held by a small number of stockholders (shareholders).


What is incorporated is inherently public. All corporations exist by charter:


A grant from the government of ownership rights in land to a person, a group of people, or an organization such as a corporation.


Without such a charter, that corporation does not exist. Since such a charter is granted by government, and since, (presumably), in this country we have a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, then a corporation exists solely because of the kindness of the people who allow its existence.

Conversely, a private business does not need permission from the people to exist, unless that private business is engaging in activities that would otherwise be illegal, i.e. the storage and transportation of toxic materials. The primary, and most noticeable difference between a corporation and a private business is in liability. A corporation is largely protected by limited liability, but a private business is not, and the owner of a private business is fully responsible, and liable for any wrong doing that business may engage in.

Further, capitalism is not necessarily a transference of government and law. Governments established by the people can coexist alongside capitalism, but capitalism can not exist if that government is regulating the market place, limiting through licensing schemes and grants of corporate charters, competition, and debasing the currency.

It is not a Utopian ideal, not even remotely, to suggest that capitalism can coexist along side a government established by the people. Under a free market system, people will still suffer, there will still be poverty, and natural disasters, and tragedies will still exist. Far from being a Utopian ideal, capitalism is a practical concept of market principles.

Regardless of what economic system is put in place, the market will still act as markets do. Which is to say that all markets respond to supply and demand. All success in markets is predicated on minimizing your outgo, and maximizing your income. Price controls are not cost controls.

Why free market advocates prefer capitalism over all other economic systems is because it best represents freedom. Capitalism is a one on one situation where if you do not like my product or service, you do not have to purchase it, and if I do not want to sell you my product or service, I don't have to. (Although, if you are interested in purchasing my service, I will happily sell it to you my friend.)

The notion that certain elements, such as water or air, could be privatized, is a mistake of fact, at least under the principles of capitalism. Water flows where ever water wants to flow. If water flows through a property you own, then you have a right to that water, but you do not have a right to impede the flow of that water, in order to "own" that water. The attempts at privatization of water have not taken place by proponents of capitalism, but have taken place by corporatist's.

Again, let me remind you of the special relationship corporations hold with the government that grants them their rights. Also allow me to assert that private people, and businesses do not hold special relationships with government and all too often lately, are treated as enemies of the state. Private people, or businesses do not need rights granted to them, they all ready have rights. This seems to be a grand annoyance to both incorporated governments, and corporations.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by area6
Capitalism is FOR PROFIT.

This means that every exchange is not equal. One party in the exchange gets back the worth they traded away plus additional worth (the profit).

This means the other party made a bad deal and lost out.



I would contend that the system we experience here in the United States that is veiled as capitalism is the above to some extent, but the capitalism presented by the OP, in its near purest form is nothing of the sort.

Basic Econ 101 would explain that your above statement is completely false.

Party A is trying to introduce their goods into the market. Party B is looking for said goods. Party A is going to try to obtain the most for their goods, while Party B is trying to obtain that good for the least amount.

Let us follow your train of thought that the exchange is not 'not equal'. In such a scenario, only looking at currency transacted, one could objectively say that you are correct. That the exchange was not equal. Party A sold his goods for a higher price than the going rate in the market. In this, Party B looks like the loser don't they?

What you are failing to see is the utility of such a transaction for both Party A and B. Party B felt the exchange to be fair enough and the utility of the goods was great enough for them to purchase at a higher price, otherwise, they would have sought another seller.

Both parties win, as Party A obtained the most for their goods, while Party B obtained the goods they wanted at an amount that satisfied both price and utility need.

(EDIT: In other words, what the buyer gives up is of their own choice; They have calculated the time and currency and have established a 'utility' value to such. It is this utility that drives the supply side of the market. What is a good worth? It is also the determination in the price of the goods that fill the demand side.)

When Government steps in, creating artificial economic situations is where we see the imbalance and inequality occur.

Subsidies, regulations, favoritism of one industry over another, etc. create false market forces that neglect the demand side of the equation and allow the supply side to create an over abundance of goods or artificially sell their goods at higher prices.

Just research rent controls....

[edit on 23-7-2010 by ownbestenemy]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I am sure you had all good posts but then theres this:

Our government only serves one interest....Themselves.

They are like Aleister Crowley masturbating in his own poop.

For yous that worship Aliester and thats great but remember that you are self sacrificing pieces of....


Kidding but sreriouslyl



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
this was very interesting, but it was like I already knew that. in other words, people should do what they want in there own yard, home, car, etc... with out maxium interference with the government, today. I can't feel safe because the government and the big corperations are spying on us by wiretap, through via, landline, mobile, internet etc...



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Capitalists run the world, The Rockerfellas The Rothschilds, the banking industry. Capitalists are your Elite, Capitalists are the powers that be. If you cant see that you've been blinded by the capitalist owned media.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well I believe I understand capitalism, I enjoy it, although I have yet to master it. I am not arguing the basis of it, I question the extent of what it entails and what it can produce in a society made of men. As I have said many times I enjoy your brand of thinking, it could be that I like you as a person and a thinker. But there is a point where this capitalist/anarchist narrative does not please me... There is a point where the certainty
sets me off and makes me ask simple questions, these questions very quickly multiply
into a pool of doubt. My first problem is never being able to tell how little government
is the goal? OP suggests Private Police... while you seem to suggest that capitalism and a we the people government can co exist. End once suggested making a corporation to counter the assault posed upon him by government.

For the most part I agree with the OP's list - but I also believe the brand of society he advocates has implications he is unwilling to examine. Those two notions can exist
at the same time... I represent the few, I am skeptical and I do not have any stedfast "allies" or a specific cause. I do not believe privatizing every aspect of society will benefit society, neither do I believe that money should be the sole force in determining
governance, order or operation.

In the case of the TARP bailouts, I believe they were a horrible rape, I also believe the process in achieving that point was based upon greed and theft dressed as legitimate
business. Ah, but then I also wonder if I would have the electricity to be typing this
if the government let Trillions "disappear" from the economy, in the form of investments vanishing with the companies that utilized such. Is it possible that
EVERYONE would be broke due to the negligence and malice of the few who capitalized
on the capitalist notion of risk and potential ruin via investment? Surely doctrine would say let them die correct? Does this mean I have the freedom to be wiped out to because someone has the power to engulf me by proxy? Is it in Americas interest to
apply stubborn dictate in a time of eminent death? Would people be happy if their money was effectively without buying power? Would Obama have initiated the unpopular stimulus if the government carried out its "regulation" as I would have,
if I was the master of all? Would that have changed the outcome of someone who
did not favor a hands off approach put their hands on? So many questions...

Instead of championing a broad sweeping analysis, I am evil or misguided to explore the avenues that my mind uncovered by virtue of this questioning. I desire nuance and practical evaluation which is hardly a great platform to debate those who champion
an age old doctrine, I can never "win" in such a circumstance, especially because I tend to mix it up with people who hold an unforeseen bar which symbolizes the true meaning of freedom. One day I hit my head on it, the next day I hit my knee, on another issue a pancake couldn't get under that suggested deconstruction of government. Hell maybe in Ends America, you might feel mighty tyrannized by some function blanketed in freedom.

So JPZ I have a question for you-

In the coming years money might become increasingly digitized, some companies
may decide to become cashless, several airlines practice this and I have read in a couple business publications that this would create efficiency and measurable cost savings. Now if this indeed sweeps society in a massive way, to the point where you cannot buy gas with cash, do you think you should have the right to use the government in a manner to mandate that business's accept continue to accept cash?
If not would it not force you to participate in the card scheme? Further more should
some entity other than the companies that create these binary systems, consisting
of BINARY money be regulated and policed? 0's and 1's... = Money (:

Ah there are tens of thousands of years to come - many things WILL come knocking dressed as business and they will be business... But is there any thresh hold? Is
a single boycott the extent of my power?


Anyways JPZ take care, gotta make that money in the morn

If any of you want to make a bundle I would be the KING in the private America, I have an idea that would make me $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ -
Its evil, %$%# up, Immoral and not very "American" as we now know.
I know OP would approve, he would also be paying me beyond a doubt.
If you ever get to that sweet spot, OP style and you have some to invest people...
Just saying, I dreamt it up and it can only harm a wallet, or every, eventually.

ETA -JPZ - U2U me what your selling if you want, I have a great mind for somethings,
maybe you need help finding clients or marketing? I am all for the money my friend,
I believe we live in the same city and need something to champion! All I know is I have faith in you, you're genius IMHO. good night

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Capitalism does not forbid people to share, to product, and sell and buy in their own economy : this is capitalism.

SO do it.

What is more spiritual than economy ? The self relationnship with reality, and others ...

If you can product anything, and get anything ... if the wall street economy is allready managed through Artificial Intelligence ...

then : where the # is the problem in the society ?

We must evolve to an other kind of society : this ... this is the way : china will never be a problem in this future if you do it now ... but if you let china 5 or 10 years we are all #ed : and i am mean a liberal society will be #ed : forever

[edit on 23-7-2010 by psychederic]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Capitalists run the world, The Rockerfellas The Rothschilds, the banking industry. Capitalists are your Elite, Capitalists are the powers that be. If you cant see that you've been blinded by the capitalist owned media.


Right. It couldn't possibly be because we actually studied the matter. The fact is that it was Karl Marx who convinced me that capitalism was the better system, after reading Das Kapital. I had not yet read Adam Smith's a wealth of nations, until after I read Das Kapital, and at that point, I had never heard of Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, or even Milton Friedman. Of course, the "capitalist owned media" hasn't been too gracious to Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, or even Milton Friedman, and are far more enamored with people like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Elinor Ostrom, but keep on ranting about the "capitalist owned media" as if these corporate giants really want massive competition, or no regulation, or even a stable currency. Right.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Capitalism: is free trade for needed goods, the right for yourself to keep as much as you allow your self to get. Symptoms: keeping what you work for at a premium you deem good.

Socialism: is the allowance of free trade of needed goods, the right for you to keep trading as you can for allowances that you can have within the confines of necessity. Symptoms: having what you don't work for be within reach of workability.

Communism: is the enforcements that what is traded and needed is good, and agreement to take more then needed by force if necessary for basic stabilization of groups. Symptoms: having average necessities for all be within means of being achievable.

Fascism: is not having to worry about taking all that you can without repercussions, a stand alone apex top of the pyramid complex, freedom to do as you deem doable. Symptoms: freedom of basic and multi live functions.







Capitalism is free trade for needed goods, the right for yourself to keep as much as you allow your self to get. Symptoms: keeping what you work for at a premium you deem good.


Capitalism is the allowance of free trade of needed goods, the right for you to keep trading as you can for allowances that you can have within the confines of necessity. Symptoms: having what you don't work for be within reach of workability.



Capitalism is the enforcements that what is traded is needed is good, and agreement to take more then needed by force if necessary for basic stabilization of groups. Symptoms: having average necessities for all within means being achievable.



Capitalism is not having to worry about taking all that you can without repercussions, a stand alone apex top of the pyramid complex, freedom to do as you deem doable. Symptoms: freedom of basic and multi live functions.

mix and match its fun.
They all apply to any ism that is out there, the opinions on them and applications differ based on what you are doing in life and experience with life.



This thread reminds me of a movie I saw today called "Pontypool" that deals with words and zombies, the zombie Apocalypse is coming im telling you im not crazy. By the way does anybody know the magic words.
Or it could be possible the zombie apocalypse passed already.... dam I missed it ohh well time to see what the pictocube has to say on what I should believe of the society that I am living is like.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The Libertarian, Law-and-order types are so dang worried about saving a few pennies cutting people off welfare so they have to starve or work for food, and that guy who robs the liquor store. Big Deal.


What libertarian law-and-order types? All the libertarians I know are a lot more worried and offended by corporate welfare and social welfare is somewhere in the middle or bottom of the complaint list. I think you are attacking people that do not exist, because all the libertarians I know are much more offended by money wasted on wars and Goldman Sachs than on food stamps. Ask any libertarian to rank a list of what needs to be cut. The food stamp programs will be near the end every time by my estimation.




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join