No. Unlike Communism, Capitalism does not require perfect implementation to work. If it did, we would have collapsed before the Soviets. Remember, Bush "abandoned free market principles to save the free market". In so doing, he created a legion of zombie banks that capitalism would have carved up and distributed to those best able to handle the resources long, long ago.
As I mentioned, Capitalism is like cleanliness. You don't have to be perfectly clean to live, but if you try to avoid getting dirty by refraining from cleaning yourself, you are in for a major infection and perhaps death before too long.
No, they aren't. In communism, one takes from people according to their ability, and distributes according to their need. The only way to accomplish this is through violence. They were always the same, and that is why every attempt at implimentation is the same. It is simply impossible.
But capitalism IS possible. We had it in the US from the end of Reconstruction until 1913, and had a shadow of it for much longer than that.
Saying that corporatism follows capitalism is like saying that filth follows cleanliness, and taking that to mean that the best way to avoid becoming dirty is to never clean oneself. Just because some power hungry people conspire to gain power and money illegitimately under capitalism doesn't mean capitalism is evil. Those same people would conspire to gain power and money for themselves no matter WHAT system we lived under. The point is that REAL capitalism harnesses the exponential function of capital investment, and raises living standards for everyone in the system. The longer it is observed, the faster the the capital compounds, until you are able to do practically anything with practically nothing.
The money went into Treasuries. The real crime is that it has been spent by the government, taking real goods off of the world market that the rest of us could have had for much cheaper otherwise (deflation is a natural mechanism that works to kick-start consumption after a crisis). The effect is basically that the government spent 50 cents for every dollars worth of productivity that year. The only reason this didn't cause a crash in the value of the dollar is because dollars are held worldwide due to reserve currency status. The consequence of this has been a minor fall in the dollar, but that fall has caused foreigners around the world to reconsider the wisdom of holding dollars or dollar denominated debt.
Look no further than the price of gold to see the real consequence.
They are thieves. Don't stigmatize them for being rich, stigmatize them for being thieves. Many people become rich, some fabulously so, by legitimate means, and in so doing do a great service to the rest of humanity. Don't conflate them with these "people".
They bought Treasuries. The Fed can buy treasuries too. It's called monetization, and it is a feature of failed governments. The only reason they did it this way was to hide that they were doing it. Now that it is public knowledge, America is likely to suffer the consequences. Ask Germany for details on how that works.
Well, considering it is a plank of the communist manifesto, it is quite clearly a feature of communism. It just happens to be a feature that is shared by fascism as well as mixed systems (which is what we have).
Communism, Maoism, and Stalinism are all very similar. Corporatism couldn't be more different from capitalism. It's like trying to describe white by saying it is black, or describing one degree off left by saying it is right.
That's corporatism, not capitalism. The inability of the public to distinguish between the two will lead directly to the downfall of this once great nation, if it hasn't already.
Nope. I have done the research. Prior to 1913, the US government spent on average well under 5% of GDP (with the median around 2.5%, it was higher during wartime). Today it is 40%, and the lowest spending of any current nation other than stateless Somalia is something like 10%.
Don't think for a second that spending then was anywhere near what it was now, even adjusted for inflation.
Uhh, yeah, like I said, recycling isn't always economical, and often hurts the environment.
Think about how computer components are recycled. More often than not, they are shipped to some third world hellhole to be set on fire, releasing toxic fumes, and the glob of metal is taken and refined. Better to put that in a landfill until the cost of recovery is high enough that it can be done without such abominable consequences.
You are an idiot. I was merely commenting on the absurdity of a municipal trash collection monopoly. The only logical reason for its existence is the thought that the state can run a business better than private industry, an assumption that is absurd on its face.
Interesting, find one symptom of the general problem with society that seems banal, then exhibit that one symptom as if it were the sum total of all of the problems with society, and claim that all is hunky dory.
Also, you're a tard. My area doesn't have municipal waste collection. No waste piling up in the streets (what kind of stupid theoretical bullshit is that?). There are four garbage collection companies that go around every week. One of them can't raise their prices, because people will move to one of the other three. This is why I pay 30% less than the people in the city, three blocks over. But you've already downed several shots of the Kool-aide, so it is probably too late for you. You will never accept logic or reason, but rather will only worship the state until they starve you to death.
Note also that a new entrepreneur has opened a new collection service that charges half of what the others do, so I guess it is five now. Wonder how long until that forces down my bill even more?
I see, so you are saying that the United States was only civilized during the Civil War, and somewhat in 1894 (when the top 10% of earners was taxed at 2 whole percent), and then descended back into barbarism in 1895 when the tax was found to be unconstitutional? You know, where there were no other income taxes other than those two?
Your reading comprehension is broken. The point is that it makes no sense for garbage collection or for garbage dumps to be owned by municipalities or granted monopolies by municipalities. The only reason that I can see that anyone would think they should is simply because someone thinks that government can do a better job than the private sector.
But then, you can't really expect someone with a jackboot comfortably pressed against their neck to really be able to think or understand much of anything, other than what the guy with the assault rifle tells him to think or understand.
Ah, yes, a simple litmus test that allows you to ignore uncomfortable realities. Anyone who recognizes that there are people who feel that the state is fundamentally more able to provide goods and services even with the preponderance of evidence that this simply is not so is "crazy", and anything they say can be safely ignored.
I guess you really think that Big Brother is looking out for your best interests. And people wonder how the Germans ever allowed the Nazis to perpetrate their atrocities. There it is, right there. Humans ignore uncomfortable realities, and alienate those who point them out.
Yes, the cost of energy intensive processes are independent of energy.
And yes, energy is the sole input, as every component can be traced back to energy costs, whether it is direct application of energy in the recycling process, or the energy used to light the home of the operator, or the energy used to power the factory that produced the kitchen table of the guy running the factory that made the operator's lightbulbs. If you pay more for something, that money will be spent on energy, unless it is saved, and the energy will be used for capital investment, or squandered by those who receive money from the printing press. The only trade off against price is the externalization factor, ie pollution. As such, the only reason to buy a more expensive good is if it comes from a factory known to emit less pollution.
There are numerous free clinics everywhere. Health fairs. Mobile labs in busses, etc. Your dad died from inaction on HIS part. Stop trying to blame people for not just giving you things.
Also note that America has a fascist health care system, where the AMA has merged with the power of the state to pointlessly increase the requirements for new doctors, artificially lowering their numbers. A nurse today gets more training than doctors did 50 years ago, and not just in terms of new technology. 95% of health problems fall under the level of simple diagnosis that could be performed by doctors with that level of training, and it could be done much more cheaply. Recall old movies and such where doctors all made house calls. You think those people were all rich? No, the fees were very reasonable, and the vast majority would treat someone in need for free if they were poor.
And plenty of people go without healthcare in social healthcare countries because they are considered unworthy.
You can't just mandate resources into existence. Attempts to do so wind up destroying the very resource you need more of. This is the problem with command economies, and the exact reason why they inevitably collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Unlike Communism, Capitalism does not require perfect implementation to work. If it did, we would have collapsed before the Soviets. Remember, Bush "abandoned free market principles to save the free market". In so doing, he created a legion of zombie banks that capitalism would have carved up and distributed to those best able to handle the resources long, long ago.
As I mentioned, Capitalism is like cleanliness. You don't have to be perfectly clean to live, but if you try to avoid getting dirty by refraining from cleaning yourself, you are in for a major infection and perhaps death before too long.
No, they aren't. In communism, one takes from people according to their ability, and distributes according to their need. The only way to accomplish this is through violence. They were always the same, and that is why every attempt at implimentation is the same. It is simply impossible.
But capitalism IS possible. We had it in the US from the end of Reconstruction until 1913, and had a shadow of it for much longer than that.
Saying that corporatism follows capitalism is like saying that filth follows cleanliness, and taking that to mean that the best way to avoid becoming dirty is to never clean oneself. Just because some power hungry people conspire to gain power and money illegitimately under capitalism doesn't mean capitalism is evil. Those same people would conspire to gain power and money for themselves no matter WHAT system we lived under. The point is that REAL capitalism harnesses the exponential function of capital investment, and raises living standards for everyone in the system. The longer it is observed, the faster the the capital compounds, until you are able to do practically anything with practically nothing.
The money went into Treasuries. The real crime is that it has been spent by the government, taking real goods off of the world market that the rest of us could have had for much cheaper otherwise (deflation is a natural mechanism that works to kick-start consumption after a crisis). The effect is basically that the government spent 50 cents for every dollars worth of productivity that year. The only reason this didn't cause a crash in the value of the dollar is because dollars are held worldwide due to reserve currency status. The consequence of this has been a minor fall in the dollar, but that fall has caused foreigners around the world to reconsider the wisdom of holding dollars or dollar denominated debt.
Look no further than the price of gold to see the real consequence.
Is the counterfeiter considered rich?
They are thieves. Don't stigmatize them for being rich, stigmatize them for being thieves. Many people become rich, some fabulously so, by legitimate means, and in so doing do a great service to the rest of humanity. Don't conflate them with these "people".
They bought Treasuries. The Fed can buy treasuries too. It's called monetization, and it is a feature of failed governments. The only reason they did it this way was to hide that they were doing it. Now that it is public knowledge, America is likely to suffer the consequences. Ask Germany for details on how that works.
Today, as for a long, long time, the clown is allowed to point out the truth when others are not.
No, we don't put them in jail because they haven't violated the law. They haven't violated the law because they ARE the law.
The system is corrupt. It's well past time to purge it.
Well, considering it is a plank of the communist manifesto, it is quite clearly a feature of communism. It just happens to be a feature that is shared by fascism as well as mixed systems (which is what we have).
Communism, Maoism, and Stalinism are all very similar. Corporatism couldn't be more different from capitalism. It's like trying to describe white by saying it is black, or describing one degree off left by saying it is right.
That's corporatism, not capitalism. The inability of the public to distinguish between the two will lead directly to the downfall of this once great nation, if it hasn't already.
Nice assertion. Too bad house calls didn't disappear until the 60's, well after the telephone had penetrated all of society.
And why on Earth would anyone be unhappy about getting more business. I don't think you thought your totally made up assertion through very well.
Nope. I have done the research. Prior to 1913, the US government spent on average well under 5% of GDP (with the median around 2.5%, it was higher during wartime). Today it is 40%, and the lowest spending of any current nation other than stateless Somalia is something like 10%.
Don't think for a second that spending then was anywhere near what it was now, even adjusted for inflation.
Uhh, yeah, like I said, recycling isn't always economical, and often hurts the environment.
Think about how computer components are recycled. More often than not, they are shipped to some third world hellhole to be set on fire, releasing toxic fumes, and the glob of metal is taken and refined. Better to put that in a landfill until the cost of recovery is high enough that it can be done without such abominable consequences.
You are an idiot. I was merely commenting on the absurdity of a municipal trash collection monopoly. The only logical reason for its existence is the thought that the state can run a business better than private industry, an assumption that is absurd on its face.
I see, so discussion of human nature has no place in a discussion on human economics. Noted.
Interesting, find one symptom of the general problem with society that seems banal, then exhibit that one symptom as if it were the sum total of all of the problems with society, and claim that all is hunky dory.
Also, you're a tard. My area doesn't have municipal waste collection. No waste piling up in the streets (what kind of stupid theoretical bullshit is that?). There are four garbage collection companies that go around every week. One of them can't raise their prices, because people will move to one of the other three. This is why I pay 30% less than the people in the city, three blocks over. But you've already downed several shots of the Kool-aide, so it is probably too late for you. You will never accept logic or reason, but rather will only worship the state until they starve you to death.
Note also that a new entrepreneur has opened a new collection service that charges half of what the others do, so I guess it is five now. Wonder how long until that forces down my bill even more?
I see, so you are saying that the United States was only civilized during the Civil War, and somewhat in 1894 (when the top 10% of earners was taxed at 2 whole percent), and then descended back into barbarism in 1895 when the tax was found to be unconstitutional? You know, where there were no other income taxes other than those two?
I see, so you are saying the market should decide?
I'm all for that.
lol, what?
Your reading comprehension is broken. The point is that it makes no sense for garbage collection or for garbage dumps to be owned by municipalities or granted monopolies by municipalities. The only reason that I can see that anyone would think they should is simply because someone thinks that government can do a better job than the private sector.
But then, you can't really expect someone with a jackboot comfortably pressed against their neck to really be able to think or understand much of anything, other than what the guy with the assault rifle tells him to think or understand.
How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
Ah, yes, a simple litmus test that allows you to ignore uncomfortable realities. Anyone who recognizes that there are people who feel that the state is fundamentally more able to provide goods and services even with the preponderance of evidence that this simply is not so is "crazy", and anything they say can be safely ignored.
I guess you really think that Big Brother is looking out for your best interests. And people wonder how the Germans ever allowed the Nazis to perpetrate their atrocities. There it is, right there. Humans ignore uncomfortable realities, and alienate those who point them out.
Tepples, real estate collapse, real estate collapse, tepples.
Yes, the cost of energy intensive processes are independent of energy.
And yes, energy is the sole input, as every component can be traced back to energy costs, whether it is direct application of energy in the recycling process, or the energy used to light the home of the operator, or the energy used to power the factory that produced the kitchen table of the guy running the factory that made the operator's lightbulbs. If you pay more for something, that money will be spent on energy, unless it is saved, and the energy will be used for capital investment, or squandered by those who receive money from the printing press. The only trade off against price is the externalization factor, ie pollution. As such, the only reason to buy a more expensive good is if it comes from a factory known to emit less pollution.
Economics is fun, isn't it?
And will someday be mined, when the resources contained therein become valuable enough to merit the processing costs.
There are numerous free clinics everywhere. Health fairs. Mobile labs in busses, etc. Your dad died from inaction on HIS part. Stop trying to blame people for not just giving you things.
Also note that America has a fascist health care system, where the AMA has merged with the power of the state to pointlessly increase the requirements for new doctors, artificially lowering their numbers. A nurse today gets more training than doctors did 50 years ago, and not just in terms of new technology. 95% of health problems fall under the level of simple diagnosis that could be performed by doctors with that level of training, and it could be done much more cheaply. Recall old movies and such where doctors all made house calls. You think those people were all rich? No, the fees were very reasonable, and the vast majority would treat someone in need for free if they were poor.
And plenty of people go without healthcare in social healthcare countries because they are considered unworthy.
You can't just mandate resources into existence. Attempts to do so wind up destroying the very resource you need more of. This is the problem with command economies, and the exact reason why they inevitably collapse.