THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Khas » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:18 pm

I love how everyone is ignoring the fact that their opponents have equally good points. BRAVO good sirs. Bravo.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:18 pm

The real productive role of a bank should not to make profit, therefore, not lending money with interest rates.
If a bank is nationalized but still practicizes lending at interest, then the different is merely one that is cosmetic, literally, in that the state is the owner, but the principle is still totally wrong.
People who haven't understood that lending with interest rates should be wholly abolished have yet to understand something major about economics and true freedom.
Therefore, I can only laugh at capitalists who want to put a price tag on anything, like air, and who see no problem with interest rates.
Picard wrote: US won't attack Iran as long as current wars are using up sufficient arms deliveries to keep weapons industry fat and fed
Cautious with that. In the past month, Israel and the US administration have really shown their teeth against Iran and are building a whole set of lies. After Iraq and Libya, you'd think the public opinion would know who the true culprits are. Nothing shall stop Israel's ever growing pipeline web. Like, for example, the accusation against Iran trying to kill the Saudi Arabia ambassador in the US. It's bullshit and Iran has nothing to gain doing that. Nothing.
Now Iran is an inch from building a nuclear weapon and they must be stopped before they launch it!!! OMG!!!
Nevermind that the country which has been a real thorn in the foot of peace in that region hardly is Iran, and Iran would have nothing to gain by nuking Israel. If Iran had a nuke, despite signing papers of nuclear non proliferation, it would be a deterrent population. The moment they'd use the nuke against Israel, all gloves would be off and Iran would last about 0.0109 picoseconds. On the other hand, Israel never signed that treaty and has hundreds of nuclear warheads. Russian can't and won't help Iran.
Next, Syria.
Meanwhile, Germany and China are only two remaining economic superpowers, and even they can't go one without another, and are both hit by crisis. US is a military superpower, but at too high a cost.
Both countries are "superpowers" only by their strong incentive on the international market. Their home markets are turd. Especially China's. Their armies aren't exactly models either.

General Donner
Bridge Officer
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by General Donner » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:19 pm

This topic seems to have ballooned in my brief absence. I'm already hopelessly lost on the political discussions.

If no one minds, I think I'll be surrendering the field for now. No point in letting my sidetrack derail the thread.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Picard » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:35 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:The real productive role of a bank should not to make profit, therefore, not lending money with interest rates.
If a bank is nationalized but still practicizes lending at interest, then the different is merely one that is cosmetic, literally, in that the state is the owner, but the principle is still totally wrong.
People who haven't understood that lending with interest rates should be wholly abolished have yet to understand something major about economics and true freedom.
Therefore, I can only laugh at capitalists who want to put a price tag on anything, like air, and who see no problem with interest rates.
True. However, that means banks would have to find different sources of financing themselves, and I really can't see what these sources could be.
Picard wrote: US won't attack Iran as long as current wars are using up sufficient arms deliveries to keep weapons industry fat and fed
Cautious with that. In the past month, Israel and the US administration have really shown their teeth against Iran and are building a whole set of lies. After Iraq and Libya, you'd think the public opinion would know who the true culprits are. Nothing shall stop Israel's ever growing pipeline web. Like, for example, the accusation against Iran trying to kill the Saudi Arabia ambassador in the US. It's bullshit and Iran has nothing to gain doing that. Nothing.
Now Iran is an inch from building a nuclear weapon and they must be stopped before they launch it!!! OMG!!!
Nevermind that the country which has been a real thorn in the foot of peace in that region hardly is Iran, and Iran would have nothing to gain by nuking Israel. If Iran had a nuke, despite signing papers of nuclear non proliferation, it would be a deterrent population. The moment they'd use the nuke against Israel, all gloves would be off and Iran would last about 0.0109 picoseconds. On the other hand, Israel never signed that treaty and has hundreds of nuclear warheads. Russian can't and won't help Iran.
Next, Syria.
True. But US corporations are currently entirely happy with wars in Iraq and Lybia; when these calm dawn a bit, we shall see what will happen next.

And only true thorn to peace in region are corporations. Israel could and would have negotiated peace a long ago, if it weren't for one problem - it has extremely well developed "domestic "security"" (read: espionage, etc.) industry, which draws experience from constant conflicts in the area. As such, it is no longer in Israeli interest to achieve peace.
Meanwhile, Germany and China are only two remaining economic superpowers, and even they can't go one without another, and are both hit by crisis. US is a military superpower, but at too high a cost.
Both countries are "superpowers" only by their strong incentive on the international market. Their home markets are turd. Especially China's. Their armies aren't exactly models either.
True, again. China's policy is slowly falling apart; and Germany has to keep European Union alive (guess why?). Again, we'll see what happens.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by mojo » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:58 am

Khas wrote:I love how everyone is ignoring the fact that their opponents have equally good points. BRAVO good sirs. Bravo.
I love how you miss the fact that the two viewpoints are so completely opposed that there can be no recognition of such. From a liberal perspective, it hardly matters that capitalism is the source of our 'daily bread', or that there are advantages to mankind that come from it, because the main concept is so selfish and uncaring toward those lower than you on the ladder. The whole idea, the whole 'believe it or not, it helps you when you give me your money, and hey, work hard enough and you can be where I am today' concept is repulsive to the liberal mind, and the chances of anyone not born rich becoming rich are about as good as the chances of winning the powerball jackpot. And of course, from a conservative perspective, the liberal viewpoint is about being lazy and unwilling to put forth the effort to become successful and wanting the government to take care of them and make sure they have their diapers changed before they go to bed at night.
To a hardcore liberal, there is no possibility of good points from conservatives because they are selfish, greedy bastards who quiet their consciences by convincing themselves that Jesus would be a republican if he were to return, all while LIVING THEIR VERY LIVES BASED ON CONCEPTS JESUS ABHORRED.
To a hardcore conservative, there is no possibility of good points from liberals because they will never understand that their ideas could never work in the real world, and since that is the case, the ideas themselves must be wrong. And besides, good lord, who cares what kind of points someone makes if their plans would RAISE TAXES?! WHY DO THEY WANT TO TAKE ALL OUR MONEY AND WASTE IT ON PIE IN THE SKY BULLSHIT?!
It's worse than trying to get Christians and Satanists to concede points. IT'S WORSE THAN TRYING TO GET SWST TO CONCEDE A POINT.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:11 pm

Picard wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:The real productive role of a bank should not to make profit, therefore, not lending money with interest rates.
If a bank is nationalized but still practicizes lending at interest, then the different is merely one that is cosmetic, literally, in that the state is the owner, but the principle is still totally wrong.
People who haven't understood that lending with interest rates should be wholly abolished have yet to understand something major about economics and true freedom.
Therefore, I can only laugh at capitalists who want to put a price tag on anything, like air, and who see no problem with interest rates.
True. However, that means banks would have to find different sources of financing themselves, and I really can't see what these sources could be.
A small tax on the possessions of its clients who have accounts in said banks, because you still need some people, not many, to manage the money. No more, no less, just what is needed to pay the wages.
For the service, see?

Banks should not have a goal to make profit. They should solely exist to enable and encourage the creation of economical activities, and have strict rules as to how they should lend money.
It's not even a question of them being in private hands or not. They could be collectivized banks for all I care, only owned by people directly, instead of the state (which would be better in a way, and funnily enough, this is part of the whole mystique where marxism and economical liberalism actually converge).
People would have to care and know about how money is used. They'd be massive amounts of raised social cohesion, as everybody would be concerned about the health of any economical activity (that's stuff people easily understand, and it would be like taking care of kids - I'm pretty sure women would perform highly in such a discipline). The whole process would also be extremely transparent. Entrepreneurs would get support, even in dire times, and would obtain help in order to maintain the activity of their companies. There would be plenty of checks and whatnots, assuring that not too much money can be landed, as well as severely regulating the bailouts. Even the collapse of a company wouldn't be such a drama, with proper management. The system itself would be very democratic, for once.
A bit like the way decisions are taken within an enhanced microcredit system, but without the massive, disgusting intellectual and ethical fraud that microcredit is.

Point is, banks must not be allowed to exist any other way.
They have, for centuries, and it's always been a problem.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Picard » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:52 pm

True. Just look at late Roman Empire and period immediately after dissolution of WRE. During Merovingian dynasty, interests could reach 33.5 %, which was later restricted to the 12.5 %. Rate of interests obviously had a tendency to grow, which forced not only king, but Church too, to intervene.

@mojo Nicely summed up.

EDIT:
mojo wrote:The whole idea, the whole 'believe it or not, it helps you when you give me your money, and hey, work hard enough and you can be where I am today' concept is repulsive to the liberal mind, and the chances of anyone not born rich becoming rich are about as good as the chances of winning the powerball jackpot.
Problem is, one can only become really rich by stealing (OK, he can get a good firm by having a good idea, but he himself becoming billionaire?).
Last edited by Picard on Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Khas » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:14 pm

mojo wrote:
Khas wrote:I love how everyone is ignoring the fact that their opponents have equally good points. BRAVO good sirs. Bravo.
I love how you miss the fact that the two viewpoints are so completely opposed that there can be no recognition of such. From a liberal perspective, it hardly matters that capitalism is the source of our 'daily bread', or that there are advantages to mankind that come from it, because the main concept is so selfish and uncaring toward those lower than you on the ladder. The whole idea, the whole 'believe it or not, it helps you when you give me your money, and hey, work hard enough and you can be where I am today' concept is repulsive to the liberal mind, and the chances of anyone not born rich becoming rich are about as good as the chances of winning the powerball jackpot. And of course, from a conservative perspective, the liberal viewpoint is about being lazy and unwilling to put forth the effort to become successful and wanting the government to take care of them and make sure they have their diapers changed before they go to bed at night.
To a hardcore liberal, there is no possibility of good points from conservatives because they are selfish, greedy bastards who quiet their consciences by convincing themselves that Jesus would be a republican if he were to return, all while LIVING THEIR VERY LIVES BASED ON CONCEPTS JESUS ABHORRED.
To a hardcore conservative, there is no possibility of good points from liberals because they will never understand that their ideas could never work in the real world, and since that is the case, the ideas themselves must be wrong. And besides, good lord, who cares what kind of points someone makes if their plans would RAISE TAXES?! WHY DO THEY WANT TO TAKE ALL OUR MONEY AND WASTE IT ON PIE IN THE SKY BULLSHIT?!
It's worse than trying to get Christians and Satanists to concede points. IT'S WORSE THAN TRYING TO GET SWST TO CONCEDE A POINT.
Oh no, I actually understood the whole thing, and was going to compare everyone in this thread to KirkSkywalker and SWST (or Jason and SDN) , but realized that that might earn me the hatred of the entire board.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by mojo » Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:11 am

*tips his hat*

no such concern here.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Picard » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:56 pm

@Khas

Well, technically, you could. But, practically, unlike versus debate, these are things that directly influence one's life.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by sonofccn » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:02 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I don't fancy marxism, although it was a correct ad hoc analysis of capitalism.
And you are free to believe so. I personally find the base assumptions to alien to be digestible.
And I don't think there's anything crazy about pointing out the obvious conclusion and reality of capitalism.
Well I would hardly call it so obvious since there is much debate and difference of opinion on the subject. At best you are listing what you believe the flaws and reality of capitalism are while I of course hold a differnt view.
Capitalism can only be accepted to some degree if it's severely tamed, like regulated capitalism, which is quite an oxymoron.
Oddly enough to my way of thinking "tamed capitalism" would cause the exact problem you are against namely uncompetitive monolithic corps squashing the little guy. I always find it humurous how those of us on either side can have a beef against the exact same problem but have such divergent ideas on how to fix it.
What would work on a small to medium level with plenty of redundancy and competition completely falls apart in a pyramidal corporation/trust system.
I fail to see how it falls apart, I don't care how rich a corp is they can't alter the laws of physics or human nature. Be it that you are manufacturing one widget or one million you still have to build your product at such a price that you can profitiably sell it.
The United States even tried to prevent the trust issue with laws, but soon new legal systems were created to circumvent those laws.
That should have been around the turn of the 20th century in the waning hours of when we were a true and total Free Market Capitalistisc nation. Not one of our prouder moments in my opinion.
OK. But then let's just consider that compensation has always existed, even under the form of mere bartering, although Church and Lords kept an eye on how things were done.
I would consider bartering a form of Capitalism yes. You enter into it to obtain a "profit", more than you are giving away.
Several times in history, several goods got their prices fixed by decree, not by offer and demand. This resulted in good things and bad things.
Which would be the action of nonCapitalism which I've never claimed has never been attempted only that without people bettering themselves for their private gain you wouldn't have the underpinnings for your nonCapitalism dictates.
When Jesus kicked some serious arse in his temple, he was certainly not conforming to the rules of offer and demand either.
I would agree not but he had a higher imperative than the mortal coil we must contend with. As I've stated I do not have an issue with Saints, merely that they don't use force to try and make me follow their example.
Yet said exploitation is everywhere
So you say. I see opportunity, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.
You seem to think that as long as people have money, they can buy more and more and more, but there are many strong limits to that, be they related to resources limitations to habits.
I believe by placing individuals in charge of his or her own decision rations our finite resources far more efficently and more fairly than any "tribunal" could accomplish. As well the rewarding of initative and effort increases supply which in turn lowers price making it more affordable for the entire spectrum. Be it cellphones to foodstuffs people trying to manufacture things as much as possible for as cheaply as possible most widely distributes items across the populace.
I'm not trying to defend those states, although I'm very curious about the degree of error in such "mismanagement" really.
I bring up that one of Communisms legacies is massive starvations and you counter by basically mentioning famines happened before in history. I took that as a defense of the Communist states, that it was just an accident it happened to each of them.

As to mismanagement typically moving people to collective farms, removing individual rewards and incentives, as well as redistributing the workforce via a central commettie. Stalin for instance was pushing heavily to industrialize which he supported by in essence stealing food from his diminished farmers.
The US produces too much food. For one, it produces waaay too much meat.
In your opinion. The public seems to disagree otherwise meat would not be produced in such quanities because it wouldn't sell.
Now, the very fact that you don't see any problem with making money out of selling air is, seriously, something that would give me a reason to kick you out of my country presto. No offense. :p
None taken.
You have certainly not refrained yourself from reducing several points to ad hominems, from accusations of crazy hippy shit to drooling marxist.
I don't recall calling you a drooling marxist but a crazed one. As to "hippy" I did not appear to use that word in my previous post but the one before that and it was expressed towards an ideology not to a particuar person.
The analysis from Marx wouldn't be so criticized if it weren't so perverted by politicians, notably to keep the proletarians from realizing that their enemy is not the employer who gains twice or thrice more money than they do, and which also ends killing small scale entrepreneurship.
I think you mistyped this sentence or didn't finish it. It appears you are arguing Marx has been misquoted by history and didn't have an ax to grind against buisness which I would find frankly surprising. Further surprising since you've claimed to be using Marxist thought to critique Capitalism and companies.
Picard wrote:And seeing what is happening here, and what is happening in the US, little governmental control over capitalists is exactly what we need. Except that government will have to find a way to stop being controlled by capitalists before that.
Actually seeing what is happening here in the US makes we demand less Goverment intrusion and less sweetheart deals and "too big to fail" bailouts.
Except that all capitalists want only one thing – to get as much profit as possible. That means lowering wages while increasing prices, as well as reducing number of workers while forcing them to work harder.
Lower wages too much and they all go work someplace else. Raise prices and your products don't sell. Reducing number of workers while cutting pay will likely see you with no workers in a very short time.
And they can't complain, beacouse they know there are 5 people on the street who can take their place. So no, your logic doesn't work.
They can always complain and they can always take their "product" ie their service someplace else if they feel they are being cheated. That is the free market system. As to the five people on the street if you are offering a raw deal its still a raw deal, the entire country can be out of work but if you are paying a penny a year for 23/7 hours of work you won't get many takers.
Except when he sells them shitty bread, and they can't do anything beacouse either there is no other baker, or all other bakers are same.
Then go into buisness as your own baker, capture the market and become a bread tycoon! :) I mean if it is that bad it should be easy as pie to take them out unless they've hamstrung you with goverment regulations.
But problem in capitalism is that it sells you shitty product, and lies to you about it.
Well if it is so "shitty" to use your colorful phrasing it doesn't matter how good you lie people wouldn't buy it. I mean you can't sell excrement as honey I don't care how much you hawk it.
Products are being sold in Europe and US several times more expensive than they should be given costs of their production, even when you account for all taxes and everything.
That would be the value of the time. People are willing to pay X for a product for whatever reason.
Yet workers get only enough so as not to drop dead.
Workers are paid for their work, building things on an assembly line is not rocket science and requires skills that are in high supply ergo has a relative low value. And these workers are free to go take another job which pays their skills at a higher rate should any come up.
In that one hour, worker can make 2 to 4 pairs of shoes, which are then sold in the US and Europe at hundred dollars per pair at least.
Yes the Owner who provides the resources to work with, working space, tools, and market to sell the product afterwards is rewarded. As to the worker they were already rewarded for their efforts by being paid, work they took because they deemed it worth the time and effort they put into it. Or to put it more simply without that particular worker Nike would continue to function without hitch or notice but conversely without Nike the worker likely could not continue manufactuing shoes much less sell them for hundreds of dollars.
And given that average pay is much less than what is required to secure most basic of needs for entire family, entire family is forced to work.
Which is worse than no job and no one is paid?
Meaning that children can't get education, and are forced to live in same shithole and same conditions as their parents – so will be their children, children of those children, and so on.
Actually it should encourage saving and thriftness who will work hard so that their children don't, who will go to school get better jobs so their children will have to work even less so their children can go to college who will refuse to work and instead protest in parks about tuition. Then I guess the cycle starts anew or something. :)
aside from slave societies of old
Okay joking aside Slavery itself has nothing to do with capitalism. Its a form of collectivism, in free market you are a willing participant who can go and stay on your decision. Slavery there is no free will, you are bound to your "master's" will.DO NOT CONFLICT IT WITH CAPITALISM
Then why you don't go to jungle and live on your own?
Oh no your not tricking me. I go do that and I'm trampling on some priceless bit of wildlife, spoiling it with my unclean presence. :)
Society is built around people helping each other.
Actually I'd argue Society is built around free trade and as I've stated I don't have an issue paying for services rendered. I like having streets paved, I'll pay for that. I like having a military I'll pay for that. I do not like being forced by dictate that I must pay for someone else, if I wish to be generous with my holdings or you with yours is fine but to force my hand is not being generous nor noble. Its being a thief.
But some basic needs, like health care and absolute minimum of food and water (public kitchens), should be made free.
You've stated this. And if you wanted to go around collecting hat in hand I wouldn't have a problem but you want me to pay as a matter of course. That people are entitled to free food, medical treatment and water. Which I disagree with. People need things, people need help at times and it is noble to give selflessly in someone else's hour of need. But I am not indebted to do it nor is it the state's job to force me into compliance.
And as for public institutions... Croatian shipbuilding industry was one of strongest in the world, until privatization happened
Well not knowing the history of Croatian shipbuilding I wouldn't know. But I'll bite, how many ships were produced under goverment control and for how much profit compared to after privatization happened. As well defgine privatization because I don't consider crony capitalism back room deals between goverment and corporations privization since obviously they are only kept in buisness by the goverment.
Simply not true. Corporations do anything to make profit.
So to prove Corporations are wasteful you link to a goverment product, ie the F-22 Raptor. All this says to me is the goverment wastes money not that the corporations are being inefficently run.
Public schools have subpar results beacouse they are underfunded compared to private ones.
Here the US blows six grand per kid per annunal. For such poor results we might as well hock the entire practice, they certainly couldn't turn out worse.
... as well as lies, theft and few other things.
No more and a lot less than the alleged alternatives.
Except that there were many things which did work, and only needed some perfecting. Like wireless energy transfer.
Unless I'm mistaken you still have the square-cubed law to deal with which makes it impratical for long distance powering. However under the free market you are allowed to invest in such technology and if you can make it more affordable than the alternatives you can beat out the compitetion.
Which wasn't employed beacouse Morgan decided it wasn't economical
It isn't as far as I'm aware, its a novelty. An intersting bit of physics but impratical to our day to day affairs.
Which would preferably be owned by state. But no independant corporations want to research it, beacouse they are making too much money out of petrol.
Actually if it was remotely profitable to produce they'd have done it long ago. It currently isn't feasible so instead boondogle "Green corporations" wanting hand outs pursue it while the work of sustaining our modern life goes out to those unsung coporations.
Car is also smelly, filthy "animal" whose "shit" has long-term damage on health of people, and only gives people worries.
I find cars quite clean, more so than a living organism, nor do I find them as smelly as I find a stable to be and horse dung also has long term issues on human health so I'd recomend minimum exposure to either "residue remainder."
Actually, between horses and cars, bicycles would be best choice.
Well its your choice but you still have severely limited mobility. For me a bike wouldn't cut it what with having a hundred mile round trip every day.
These people were far happier and richer when they were living from their land; but government, in order to make foreign corporations come there, took the land from them and forced them to work for corporations.
I'm sure. And instead of being angry at the corrupt goverment which wronged them they want to take it out on the innocent corporation who gives them work. Nice folks.

But anyway what is the point? Unless you are arguing that entire workforce of the third world is caused by stealing people's property what does a interview of some people, likely selected for their uncapitalistic slant, prove?
So they can grow more food? They can't grow more food precisely due to these same corporations, beacouse they work non-stop to earn barely enough to feed themselves.
Those corporations are paying them what their work is worth more than they could make without those corporations and using those funds obtained from their services they pay people for other services they require/desire. Which creates an increase of demand which causes an increase of supply to meet, ergo more people actually working than starving in ditches makes growing food more profitable and assuming we can keep the goverment out of everything bingo we have more food.
And their corporate overlords are only concerned about profit. Imperialism, colonialism and slavery in their newest outfits.
Look your previous reply seemed halfway decent and I tried to be respectful but I do not find this amusing. Capitalism is not slavery, both particpants are free to engage or disengage their partnership as they wish. The nearest equivlent would be what you propose, forcing people like me to work to support another group without compensation.
Praeothmin wrote:What I notice in this thread is how black or white people's opinions seem to be...
Yes but in the cruciable of our heated rethoric we should make an nice, all suffocating Gray. Progress!:)
Praeothmin wrote:@sonofccn, pure, unrestrained Capitalism is in grand part responsible for the poor economic state of the US, and the rest of the Capitsalist world, and the main reason why our Capitalist jobs are being transferred to communist countries, like China...
Well I would be forced to disagree, at the very least we haven't had unrestrained Capitalism since the end of the 19th century. I can however respect your difference of opinion to the problems we both agree are all too real.
Praeothmin wrote:Am I a Capitalist ?
Are you? What is the secret handshake?! Er...I mean no we don't have a secret handshake...that's silly just like we don't have a secret moonbase...and it certainly isn't powered by the tears of small orphans. :)
Praeothmin wrote:Am I a Capitalist ?
Hell yes, humans work best when motivated, and in such a materialist society, and even moreso, in such a leisure society, having a greater financial power means more leisure time, less worries for food or a roof over my head, etc, etc...
But I like Canada's take on Capitalism, where the poor and unlucky are taken care of, where there are rules Capitalists must follow that ensures a greater number of people actually have a chance at getting their share of the wealth and ressources that could be used by many arenot squandered
I can respect that and I don't really mean to cause a fuss, just threw a bomb in because I found the discussion more mopey complaining for sake of complaining than trying to solve anything, through of course I fear the regulating power as much as you are cautious of unrestrained Corporations.
Praeothmin wrote:where even someone born in a poor family who could not afford schooling if it was privatized can now go to school and improve his lot in life...
Oy! Your taking the smeg now. Now who will we have work in the acid mines...mining acid...which we pour into acid mines...to mine. :)

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:25 pm

@sonofccn:
Too much regulations is a bad thing, but I feel there must be regulations, such as, for example, not allowing companies to loan money to "underserving" households, thus making it least likely to see such a household defaulting on mortgage payments, for example.
We have these regulations, which is why we weren't hit with the defaulting spree that happened in the USA a few years back...

Canada's far from perfect, though, IMO, and it did abolish all sales regulations stating that at least , say, 25% of all things sold in Canada had to be made here, which did cost us a shitload of jobs that went to China...

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by sonofccn » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:40 pm

Picard wrote:And corporatism did not? Hitler was corporatist, and was supplied by Western corporations even throught all of WW2 (by Ford, for example). They even paid for his election campaign.
Hitler was a left of center oppertunist who rallied himself as a bastion against the chaotic red Horde. In a nutshell voting Hitler allowed one to be radically chic and for the people without risking ones cushy position or stability.

As to Corporations obviously German buisness placed hedge money on the guy once he proved he wasn't going away, as well as investing in a prefered stake in his Goverment-buisness partnerships, and once again he was presenting himself as the alternative to Commie Hordes. The guys who stated goal was to tear down the system so you can see how if you were in the market to do buisness in Germany he was the the more attractive option than the rabble rousing Marxist. Buisnessmen are human, human makes mistakes. Thats life.

Now this Ford buisness that is a serious charge if he sold things to the Enemy through a quick google search turns up a bunch of nutso websites blathering it seems about factories Ford built there before the war and which the German's utilized which is hardly something Ford can be blamed for. But I could be over looking the evidence for this most vile crime, so what exactly did you mean by Ford supporting Nazi Germany after the US entered the war.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by Khas » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:49 pm

Actually, Hitler was just right of center. And Ford was a Nazi sympathizer. And it was Standard Oil that sold oil to Nazi Germany, because they were "in the business of making money".

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

Post by sonofccn » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:06 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Too much regulations is a bad thing, but I feel there must be regulations, such as, for example, not allowing companies to loan money to "underserving" households, thus making it least likely to see such a household defaulting on mortgage payments, for example.
Subprime Mortages? We actually had regulation demanding banks lend if you can believe it.
Praeothmin wrote:We have these regulations, which is why we weren't hit with the defaulting spree that happened in the USA a few years back...

Canada's far from perfect, though, IMO, and it did abolish all sales regulations stating that at least , say, 25% of all things sold in Canada had to be made here, which did cost us a shitload of jobs that went to China...
Well if it works for you I hope you pursue it and have all the success. As for me I'm afraid I just have a knee-jerk reaction to that sort of stuff, it is who I am. Through I do thank you for taking the time to express and cataloge your thoughts.

Post Reply