Bernie Sanders' Religion is Collectivism

a reply to: ketsuko


As repugnant as your posts are, you reminded me of this vid:

Some truck stops have a buffet. Every morning they offer all you can eat breakfast to include all you can eat bacon, usually about $9.00 for the breakfast buffet.

The worst thing about Bernie's plan is that it shrinks the amount of bacon in the world. Less bacon means more expensive bacon.

Bernie is completely insensible to that.

Capitalism means more bacon in the world, which means cheaper bacon in the world, which means bacon for everyone almost free at some time in the future.

Bernie's religion has sucked 95% your wealth into the plutocracy since 1900.

Must be a religion or else Bernie would be a criminal against humanity.

Well, Cuixmala probably just got destroyed, if that helps.

May have been a direct hit.

It's off the road, on 120, at marker 46 on a 8 by 10 sign, I think.

I see the Hanauer story as a deliberate plant.
It is the government that has perpetuated the need for scrambling for basic survival, for the many.
They rig it that way. And now, surprise, they are hunting us like prey!

Can anyone tell me if they are discussing Civil Rights? At all?
Problems with the brownshirts shooting dogs, and persons, like they're wild hogs?

I'm guessing they have that covered by simply embracing every possible sexual form of congress. That makes them appear to be 'libertarian', liberal. Progressive. S'cuse the no knock anonymous tip wrong address house raid.
Oh, I know my master's mind.

Now, they are going to distract your attention, to focus hate and death and retaliation against many who prospered despite government hindrances and misdirections. Corporations that do not pay taxes are a whole 'nother thing than persons who are simply materially well off. And oligarchs, surprise, always seem to stay in power in these bolshevik haunted forests. They give the proletariat hope that they too can have 70 billion one day even rising from a spy! They are deliberately setting a savage bolshevik tone with the pitchfork syntax, while simultaneously taking away the 2nd amendment. Hmmm.

Speaking of basic needs…is anyone in this Circus Ring addressing fracking, and the little problem we are having with water, as in drinking water?


a reply to: Spiramirabilis

# 529

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Capitalism means more bacon in the world, which means cheaper bacon in the world, which means bacon for everyone almost free at some time in the future.

Right. Capitalism is what is going to bring about more cheap bacon and at some point almost free bacon for everyone.

What backward, twisted, reverse world are you from??? That is the opposite of what capitalism is about.

Your economics professor upon hearing you say that would shoot himself in the face with tears in his heart.

I find it interesting however, that according to your theory when Capitalism brings forth "Free Stuff" it's wonderful but when Socialism brings forth "Free Stuff" it's Evil. Meanwhile there is no such thing as "Free Stuff" in reality regardless of what economic model you think got you there.

a reply to: mOjOm

Nah, capitalism doesn't actually bring free bacon. It just brings bacon at a cost where pretty much anyone should be able to afford it if they want it.

See, one guy creates stuff called bacon. He's the most famous chef in the world and only the super rich can afford to eat his bacon, but it's so good that pretty soon, other people learn how to make bacon and start selling to other people for less money because they aren't as well known or their process isn't his process so maybe their bacon isn't quite the same.

Eventually, someone becomes the Henry Ford of bacon and learns how to make it in large batches so they can make so much that it doesn't matter if they sell it for mere pennies, they are making so much that they will still make money, a lot of money. So the sell it to anyone and everyone.

So those people create this idea that if they simply take the bacon and redistribute it, it's "fair." But then there is no incentive left for anyone to make anything for everyone. Why bother? There is no point. It will simply be taken away from you.

And then bacon was available to just about anyone for pennies on the dollar. That's how it works.

But of course, there will always be people who will hate the idea that they should have to pay for a thing they want and hate the idea that someone is getting rich off them paying for something they want.

a reply to: mOjOm

When capitalism provides almost free stuff -- the stuff is really almost free, as in the costs to produce it are low.

When socialism "provides" free stuff, the stuff is taken from here and put to there. Socialism is theft.

Socialism is dividing up the pie -- a zero sum process.

Capitalism is growing the pie -- which makes everything almost free someday in the future.

Compare the bacon supply pre industrial revolution to the bacon supply post industrial revolution.

The Industrial revolution is a capitalistic phenomenon. Socialism had nothing to do with it, and the net result of all socialistic control is the suffocation of the next wealth creating revolution.

a reply to: ketsuko

The end result of Capitalism is to turn High Priced Items of Limited Availability into Low Priced Items of Common Availability????

In other words the End Result of Capitalism is a Society Easy Access, Low Cost Stuff for Everyone???? Sounds like Socialism.

a reply to: mOjOm

In socialism the end result never happens. Socialist rejoice at the legislation -- Hooray more control.

NO socialist policy has got the result it intended.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't think so. It's all in how you look at it.

Nothing is Free. Bacon still takes work. It still requires some work of turning piggies in to yummy, yummy bacon. The difference is that who does the work, how much is made and how it's distributed changes hands.

Socialism and Capitalism both divide up the pie.

On a side note. Bacon Pie is starting to sound pretty good right now!!

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
In socialism the end result never happens. Socialist rejoice at the legislation -- Hooray more control.

NO socialist policy has got the result it intended.

What makes you think there is an end result??? As far as I can tell, if we reach an End Result, that's it. We're done. We've ended.

I think we should stop thinking about stuff having ends and realize it's about sustained continuation that is important. Things that end do us no good.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ketsuko

The end result of Capitalism is to turn High Priced Items of Limited Availability into Low Priced Items of Common Availability????

In other words the End Result of Capitalism is a Society Easy Access, Low Cost Stuff for Everyone???? Sounds like Socialism.

The problem is that the end product of socialism never materializes like it is advertised to when practiced on a grand scale.

Socialism on a small scale, voluntary basis might achieve this end. A family unit, for example, is about a close as you can get or subsistence tribe or clan unit. Individuals pool their resources on a voluntary survival basis and trust keeps the unit cohesive.

But on a larger basis where socialism is compelled it always falls apart. Too many people take advantage or the system either for their own enrichment by skimming off the top or by allowing the system to carry their weight that it always breaks down in the end. Socialism relies too much on legalistic controls to perfect itself because the people inside the system cannot be relied upon to maintain the level of voluntary participation needed to really make the system work.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't think so. It's all in how you look at it.

There is more food per acre and man hour of labor now than then there was pre Industrial revolution.

Nothing is Free. Bacon still takes work. It still requires some work of turning piggies in to yummy, yummy bacon. The difference is that who does the work, how much is made and how it's distributed changes hands.

I wrote almost free, not free.

Capitalism lowers the cost of production.

Socialism waves hands and does magic.

Socialism and Capitalism both divide up the pie.

wrong

On a side note. Bacon Pie is starting to sound pretty good right now!!

My favorite source of electrolytes.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
In socialism the end result never happens. Socialist rejoice at the legislation -- Hooray more control.

NO socialist policy has got the result it intended.

What makes you think there is an end result??? As far as I can tell, if we reach an End Result, that's it. We're done. We've ended.

I think we should stop thinking about stuff having ends and realize it's about sustained continuation that is important. Things that end do us no good.

Everything a human does is to achieve an end result. Not an end of time result, just the goal that was the intention of the human's action.

Bernie and the collectivists obviously did stop thinking somewhere.

About the time that "he who does not work does not eat" changed into "he who does not obey does not eat".

Socialism would pass a law redistributing breath if it could.

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think you can rely on either one as a whole unto itself and expect success. A mix of Independent Achievement and Collective Participation is required. Neither one without the other will ultimately have success however. Independence inspires innovation and rewards those who take risks when they achieve success. While Collective Participation provides the stable environment from which Independence becomes possible.

It's like Socialism is the fertile ground from which Capitalism can produce new fruits. However, those Capital Fruits must eventually replenish the soil again so new Fruits can be grown. With only one of the two you don't have a sustainable system. You either Over Produce or Under Produce yourself into a end.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Socialism and Capitalism both divide up the pie.

Not exactly.

Socialism sees the pig farmer who makes bacon, decides it isn't fair that no one else is making bacon, takes the pigs and bacon and gives them to everyone else so that while the actual amount of pigs and bacon has not changed, everyone has a small amount.

Capitalism doesn't take away any of the pigs or bacon. It just makes it easy for anyone else who wants to to grow their own pigs or make their own bacon to compete with the original farmer ensuring there will be more pigs and more bacon and that they will also end up being both more freely available and much, much cheaper.

Socialism divides up the pie and tends to stagnate it while capitalism seeks to make it bigger if at all possible.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

MMMmmmmm Electrolytes. It's what Plants Crave!!

You can't just say "Wrong". Well, you can, but that explain it. I can just as easily rebuttal with, "No, I'm Right." Then you say, "No, you're Wrong." etc. etc. This can go on for some time and only ends when one of us Explains why the other is "Right or Wrong".

I see it as the same "Almost Free" concept. As I said, nothing is ever "Free". Neither in Capitalism or in Socialism. The work is still being done to produce whatever function is being done. Take Health Care. Someone is still doing the work of the Care Provider to the sick either way. They are still getting paid either way. Only one way the pay is a direct transfer of the Provided to the Provider in full. The other is a transfer from all the Provided in a very small amount to that Provider. So it's not "Free" at all. It's just the cost has been distributed as well as the provisions.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

About the time that "he who does not work does not eat" changed into "he who does not obey does not eat".

Socialism would pass a law redistributing breath if it could.

Now I think you're getting paranoid. One could also say that Capitalism does the same and has the same paranoid end result.

Capitalism would Privatize air and force your payment and/or compliance to earn every breath if it could as well.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think you can rely on either one as a whole unto itself and expect success. A mix of Independent Achievement and Collective Participation is required. Neither one without the other will ultimately have success however. Independence inspires innovation and rewards those who take risks when they achieve success. While Collective Participation provides the stable environment from which Independence becomes possible.

It's like Socialism is the fertile ground from which Capitalism can produce new fruits. However, those Capital Fruits must eventually replenish the soil again so new Fruits can be grown. With only one of the two you don't have a sustainable system. You either Over Produce or Under Produce yourself into a end.

Collective participation is still individual action. The collective is the net effect of all of the individual actions done in its area.

Motivated individuals will always do more.

Capitalism lets the individual decide how much return he wants and subsequently how much exertion, resources or time to spend in order to do what he wants his life to do. Money is the mediator between effort and result for material things.

Socialism can never afford as much control and freedom to the individual.

a reply to: ketsuko

But that makes no sense. If Socialism want's everyone to have bacon then it wants what the Pig Farmer wants. Pig Farmer want's everyone to have bacon too. That's just more pig farming he'll be doing. Socialism would then socialize the Farmer and his trade to more farmers if needed to meet the supply which it intends on having. That distribution of bacon then going to everyone and everyone paying a minor fee collectively which then goes to the Farmer or Farmers providing the delicious slices of piggy goodness.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

About the time that "he who does not work does not eat" changed into "he who does not obey does not eat".

Socialism would pass a law redistributing breath if it could.

Now I think you're getting paranoid. One could also say that Capitalism does the same and has the same paranoid end result.

Capitalism would Privatize air and force your payment and/or compliance to earn every breath if it could as well.

Socialism and only socialism privatizes -- Only socialism claims that the government is justified to do anything.

Capitalism only sells to voluntary buyers.