Questions for capitalists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2013, 07:29 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 07:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 07:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Bob you just got my vote for president next go around.

"If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." - GirlyMan Tecumseh Sherman

Girly ain't as stupid as I look. Big Grin

Heh we live in as safe a blue state as there is I just want to see Girlyman - 1 vote show up in the local papers recap. Smile

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
24-10-2013, 07:39 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 07:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 07:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." - GirlyMan Tecumseh Sherman

Girly ain't as stupid as I look. Big Grin

Heh we live in as safe a blue state as there is I just want to see Girlyman - 1 vote show up in the local papers recap. Smile

I wonder if I made a write-in vote for GirlyMan would it violate the Hatch Act? Consider Nah, there's a shitload of GirlyMen out there. Big Grin

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 07:40 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Quote: As long as "socialism" remains a dirty word when most of all civilization, including the US, is socialist to one degree or another further discussion is just a waste of words.

Socialism is a ban on the private ownership of the means of production (ie all enterprise, factories, etc. must be collectively owned), and it is supposed to be only a stepping stone to communism (a ban on all personal private property as well). How can something be 'socialist' to a degree? Either private ownership is banned, or it's not. Regulation of privately owned companies isn't socialism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 07:40 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote: As long as "socialism" remains a dirty word when most of all civilization, including the US, is socialist to one degree or another further discussion is just a waste of words.

Socialism is a ban on the private ownership of the means of production (ie all enterprise, factories, etc. must be collectively owned), and it is supposed to be only a stepping stone to communism (a ban on all personal private property as well). How can something be 'socialist' to a degree? Either private ownership is banned, or it's not. Regulation of privately owned companies isn't socialism.

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

Quote:Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

When the meaning of a term has changed over time insisting on the archaic meaning is dishonest.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
24-10-2013, 07:50 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2013 08:09 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 07:40 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote: As long as "socialism" remains a dirty word when most of all civilization, including the US, is socialist to one degree or another further discussion is just a waste of words.

Socialism is a ban on the private ownership of the means of production (ie all enterprise, factories, etc. must be collectively owned), and it is supposed to be only a stepping stone to communism (a ban on all personal private property as well). How can something be 'socialist' to a degree? Either private ownership is banned, or it's not. Regulation of privately owned companies isn't socialism.

Come on Frank, I know you ain't that dim. You're just splitting hairs for the sake of scaremongering and you and I both know it. The US has been socialist since at least FDR and the New Deal. Is Social Security socialist? Is Medicare socialist? Is Medicaid socialist? If not then neither is the Affordable Care Act. If so then we're already fucking socialist. Tongue

[Image: medicare.jpg][Image: keepgovernmentoutofmymedicare.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
24-10-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 07:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

@Revenant77x, did you even read the wikipedia post you made? All it does is state the exact same definition I gave earlier. Read it again, and ask yourself, how is, for example, Verizon, under "social ownership"? Is it a "cooperative enterprise" (ie owned by the customers)? Is it "common ownership" (owned by everyone)? Is it "state ownership" (owned by the government)? Is it "citizen ownership of equity" (citizens are the shareholders)?

No, no, no, no. Therefore it is NOT socialist. Sure, it may be regulated, but look again at the wikipedia page for Socialism. There is absolutely nothing on that page that even remotely suggests Socialism is defined as 'regulation'.

Quote:I know you ain't that dim. You're just splitting hairs for the sake of scaremongering and you and I both know it.

Not at all. When socialism turned out to be such a dismal failure, socialists, rather than admitting defeat, started saying that high taxes and regulation (like Sweden) was somehow "socialism". And conservative morons just intensify the problem by stupidly saying that EVERYTHING the government does is "socialism".
Therefore, the word today has almost no meaning. I am using the literal meaning of the word. It is and always has been a requirement that the means of production have "social ownership". Sure there is government taxation on and regulation of the means of production, but socialism refers to the OWNERSHIP of the means of the production, which today is very much private.

Quote:Is Social Security socialist? Is Medicare socialist? Is Medicaid socialist?

Of course not. They have nothing to do with ownership of the means of production.

Quote:If not then neither is the Affordable Care Act.

Of course. I'm not some idiot like Sarah Palin that's going to say it's "socialism" just because I don't like it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 08:46 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 07:40 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote: As long as "socialism" remains a dirty word when most of all civilization, including the US, is socialist to one degree or another further discussion is just a waste of words.

Socialism is a ban on the private ownership of the means of production (ie all enterprise, factories, etc. must be collectively owned), and it is supposed to be only a stepping stone to communism (a ban on all personal private property as well). How can something be 'socialist' to a degree? Either private ownership is banned, or it's not. Regulation of privately owned companies isn't socialism.

Private property like underwear and shoes are not banned in any socialist or communist system. Personal property is not what any communist government or writer was referring to. The working class should not want and do not deserve to have what they produced with their labor to be privately owned by another person.

Why do you consider it necessary for the fruits of a countries labor to be privately owned by a few people?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:13 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
@Revenant77x,

I quoted YOUR post and asked you 4 basic, obvious yes/no questions (see my last post re: Verizon). Obviously the questions were well placed because you simply ran from them as always, and then you go post on my reputation that I'm a blind ideologue? Excuse me? If I'm so blind, how is it that I can throw out question after repeatedly and accurately predict that they'll leave you so baffled and confused that you'll run from them, while you can't come up with even one question that I won't address head on?

You're the one who made such a stupid post. You quoted Wikipedia without even reading what you were posting because it contradicted everything you said and confirmed everything I said. And, when you're backed in a corner, rather than opening your mind and admitting that you might be wrong, you just lash out with personal attacks. Really pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:21 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(17-10-2013 11:47 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:20 AM)frankksj Wrote:  There's nothing at all illogical about it. I challenge you to point out something specific that is not logical. Your comments that this has been going on since 1917 are lunacy. Google "unprecedented qe bernanke". Most everybody, including Bernanke, and all the Keynesian economists, says that the current policy which began in 2007 is "unprecedented". So, they all say you're wrong to suggest this has been going on since 1917.

I actually disagree with all of them, though. It's only 'unprecedented' in THIS current fiat cycle that began in 1971. If you read your history books about what happened in the prior fiat cycles, you'll see the cycle has actually repeated over 3,000 times in human history, and the end result has always been the same.

That's why a central bank is normally barred from paying for a government's spending by buying up all the government's debt because, historically, 100% of the time it leads to an economic collapse. The Fed decided to try this age-old QE system yet another time in 2008 (QE1) because the Keynesian models predicted this would 'stimulate' the economy and increase economic activity and taxes, so it would be a one time act. The Keynesian models were, of course, wrong--QE had the opposite effect. But, rather than admitting their mistake, they tried an even bigger QE2. Again, it failed and again they tried an even bigger QE3->unlimited. And, big surprise, it still has failed.

So when you say this has been going on since 1917, you're right and you're wrong. This cycle of defaulting on a representative currency, switching to a fiat currency, and then printing fiat money to pay the bills, dates back to the year 1100. The Song Dynasty was the first to try it. It's been tried 3,000 times since then. It has always collapsed within 50 years, leading to an economic meltdown. The US has already gone through this cycle 7 times, and, yes, it's always led to an economic meltdown. So, you're RIGHT, but grossly understated, to say it's been going on since 1917. However, IF we talk about the CURRENT fiat cycle, which began with Nixon, this is the first time the government has resorted to printing money to pay the bills, which is always the final stage before a monetary collapse.

Have fun in the little fantasy land you apparently live in. I am done responding to you as you have no idea what is actually involved in these decisions and are uninterested in a real discussion.
I wasn't kidding. I will toss up obvious fact checking but as you do not engage in honest debate I see no need to waste my time responding.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:22 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2013 09:30 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 07:40 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote: As long as "socialism" remains a dirty word when most of all civilization, including the US, is socialist to one degree or another further discussion is just a waste of words.

Socialism is a ban on the private ownership of the means of production (ie all enterprise, factories, etc. must be collectively owned), and it is supposed to be only a stepping stone to communism (a ban on all personal private property as well). How can something be 'socialist' to a degree? Either private ownership is banned, or it's not. Regulation of privately owned companies isn't socialism.

So you're arguing from some outdated definition of "socialism" which is every bit as useless as "communism" and "capitalism" as a practical matter. So maybe we can just drop "socialism" now and we can discuss the appropriate degree of "socialist". 'Cause there's definitely different degrees of that, ain't no threshold value. Does that suit you better? Or no?

(24-10-2013 08:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:If not then neither is the Affordable Care Act.

Of course. I'm not some idiot like Sarah Palin that's going to say it's "socialism" just because I don't like it.

Hey now big fella, I said I knew you weren't dim let alone condemning you to Palinesque dimwittedness. Hell, I kinda like you. I try to not be all up in your grill 'cause I think you got some worthwhile shit to say. But your arguments are only considered when you ain't all up in my grill. ... Fair enough?




As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: