yeah, socialism is bad

thefin190

Cosmo wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

well stated...it's all a balance between the two.
and hey, can't one be a true believer in captialism ANd see the value of social programs as well? again, balance...it doesn't have to be all or none.


and i do have to agree with cosmo to the point that yea, we all know the government fucks things up, but they also do a helluva lot of things 'right' too.....it's complex running anything as large as our country, our government, our programs...no matter what they are. and holy shit, there is plenty of waste in private corporations as well, i am amazed at times. only when things aren't going right do the issues get addressed, whether public or private.

Under a real free-market capitalist system, waste in private corporations would ultimately lead to their demise. Poor business practice would not be protected, bailed out, or rewarded in anyway for poor decision making. The market would stand to keep companies far more "regulated" and on an even playing field than any man-made laws (excluding fraud, theft, collusion, etc..) and competition would be much fiercer.

...
Fierce to the point of actually murdering the competition? That's if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Because the market would NOT regulate itself and competition would rule. The best way to corner the market in your business... make it so you are the only business, right?
And Fraud, Theft and Collusion are man-made laws... if it weren't against the law... because there were no laws... it wouldn't be a crime.
Bottom line... there NEEDS to be an outside governing body that posts regulations... otherwise, we end up with the people making the money... and the rules.[/quote]

Not to mention all the malpractice that would occur. Like I said, if there was no governing bodies like the FDA, the big businesses would cut corners. In fact, the FDA already lets them cut corners because we have a government that believes that capitalism is the answer to all our problems. Anyone should see Food Inc if they can, or get it on DVD whenever it comes out, because it really shows that we have regressed so far back in our regulatory system that the meat manufacturing of today almost resembles the meat and food industry 100 years ago when Teddy Roosevelt raided the factory and changed laws.

OffHeGoes29

So how about it Cosmo, does the Government over pay for its contracts with your company?

WaveCameCrashin

decides2dream wrote:

we all know the government fucks things up, but they also do a helluva lot of things 'right' too.....

:shock: You sure don't see this very often on AMT.

VINNY GOOMBA

Cosmo wrote:

...
Fierce to the point of actually murdering the competition? That's if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Because the market would NOT regulate itself and competition would rule. The best way to corner the market in your business... make it so you are the only business, right?
And Fraud, Theft and Collusion are man-made laws... if it weren't against the law... because there were no laws... it wouldn't be a crime.
Bottom line... there NEEDS to be an outside governing body that posts regulations... otherwise, we end up with the people making the money... and the rules.

I don't understand why people equate free markets with absolute anarchy and lawlessness, this is not the case. Free markets means that the government stays out of business, stops playing favorites and subsidizing their friends. How much more sense would clean, greener energy make right now if our tax dollars didn't deceptively lower the price tag of fossil fuels?

Of course competition is fierce, and companies would seek to put each other out of business-- except, in a free market system they would not have at their disposal the most effective and mafia-esque method of doing this, which is using THE GOVERNMENT to make laws that put their competitors out of business.

And under the current system, the people who literally "make the money" make the rules. "Regulation" brought us fractional reserve banking, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, need I go on? So much for regulation.

Commy

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Fierce to the point of actually murdering the competition? That's if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Because the market would NOT regulate itself and competition would rule. The best way to corner the market in your business... make it so you are the only business, right?
And Fraud, Theft and Collusion are man-made laws... if it weren't against the law... because there were no laws... it wouldn't be a crime.
Bottom line... there NEEDS to be an outside governing body that posts regulations... otherwise, we end up with the people making the money... and the rules.

I don't understand why people equate free markets with absolute anarchy and lawlessness, this is not the case. Free markets means that the government stays out of business, stops playing favorites and subsidizing their friends. How much more sense would clean, greener energy make right now if our tax dollars didn't deceptively lower the price tag of fossil fuels?

Of course competition is fierce, and companies would seek to put each other out of business-- except, in a free market system they would not have at their disposal the most effective and mafia-esque method of doing this, which is using THE GOVERNMENT to make laws that put their competitors out of business.

And under the current system, the people who literally "make the money" make the rules. "Regulation" brought us fractional reserve banking, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, need I go on? So much for regulation.

and a free market gave us the carnegie's and the rockefellers and monopolies and wage slavery and violent reactions to worker strikes.

the free market failed. money rules now. which, given the principles of capitalism how could you expect anything different? companies like wall mart make more money than countries like greece, while 11-13 million people starve to death because profit is more important than people.

capitalism, at its core, motivates people with greed and selfishness, encourages and rewards those things, while socialism puts the community over people. that fundamental shift in motivation removes the motivation behind almost every type of violent crime. and much more...its worth checking out....this shit we have today rewards the wrong kinds of people.

DriftingByTheStorm

Commy wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Fierce to the point of actually murdering the competition? That's if the market is allowed to regulate itself. Because the market would NOT regulate itself and competition would rule. The best way to corner the market in your business... make it so you are the only business, right?
And Fraud, Theft and Collusion are man-made laws... if it weren't against the law... because there were no laws... it wouldn't be a crime.
Bottom line... there NEEDS to be an outside governing body that posts regulations... otherwise, we end up with the people making the money... and the rules.

I don't understand why people equate free markets with absolute anarchy and lawlessness, this is not the case. Free markets means that the government stays out of business, stops playing favorites and subsidizing their friends. How much more sense would clean, greener energy make right now if our tax dollars didn't deceptively lower the price tag of fossil fuels?

Of course competition is fierce, and companies would seek to put each other out of business-- except, in a free market system they would not have at their disposal the most effective and mafia-esque method of doing this, which is using THE GOVERNMENT to make laws that put their competitors out of business.

And under the current system, the people who literally "make the money" make the rules. "Regulation" brought us fractional reserve banking, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, need I go on? So much for regulation.

and a free market gave us the carnegie's and the rockefellers and monopolies and wage slavery and violent reactions to worker strikes.

the free market failed. money rules now. which, given the principles of capitalism how could you expect anything different? companies like wall mart make more money than countries like greece, while 11-13 million people starve to death because profit is more important than people.

capitalism, at its core, motivates people with greed and selfishness, encourages and rewards those things, while socialism puts the community over people. that fundamental shift in motivation removes the motivation behind almost every type of violent crime. and much more...its worth checking out....this shit we have today rewards the wrong kinds of people.

Commy,
the fundamental flaw with your argument (and don't get me wrong, on the SURFACE it IS a GREAT argument) is this:

how does a "socialist" system significantly alter the state of affairs with respect to who has the power and who controls the majority of the wealth?

Can you name me one socialist country which belongs to the EU which you think meets your standard?

Because i'm pretty sure (and i'm not feigning pretense here) that all of the countries which you would consider to currently be socialist have at their highest levels the EXACT SAME RULERS as the "evil" western "capitalist" country, which in fact is a country (the USA) that exhibits more than TWO THIRDS OF THE TENANTS OF COMMUNISM AS DESCRIBED BY KARL MARX (a Jew and a Freemason, FYI).

Going down this line, i foresee that perhaps you will argue something to the effect of "but these are not TRUE socialist countries". Well of COURSE my good friend. But then your argument must account for the fact that, just like "true" communism, man has failed to actually implement and account for such a system as you describe.

In fact, TRUE communism WAS tried, by Trotsky and his followers (who bitterly opposed Stalin [sometimes illuminist puppet] and his Elite-ruled bureaucratic version of "communism"), but he and they were ruthlessly persecuted by the faux-communist regime that was owned by, and in fact nothing more than a staged antagonist to, the very same elite banking interests that now exert so much influence upon nearly every civilized country on earth and financed and organize ALL of the worlds major international bodies, councils, and NGOs.

So if you are proposing socialism as a solution ... TRUE socialism ...
HOW ARE YOU PROPOSING WE ACHIEVE IT?

Certainly i would hope you propose to work it OUTSIDE of the CURRENT system ... ie. the OWNED international elite scheme? Or would you perhaps be content to have THEM arrange it for you?
Would you trust them?

The bottom line is that "CROOKED" PEOPLE CAN AND WILL WORK TO CORRUPT ANY SYSTEM AND CAN AND WILL WORK TO MAKE THAT SYSTEM WORK FOR THEM.

And people, PLEASE.
If you have to ask who "they" are,
ask yourself this:
who is it that decided the people of Europe would have to continually re-vote on EU\Lisbon sovereignty treatise until they got it "right"?

You really chalk that kind of stuff up to one bad leader?
You don't perhaps think there is a BROADER power base behind these types of treacherous trickery?
Are you not angered by the contempt with which your real masters treat you?

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Commy,
the fundamental flaw with your argument (and don't get me wrong, on the SURFACE it IS a GREAT argument) is this:

how does a "socialist" system significantly alter the state of affairs with respect to who has the power and who controls the majority of the wealth?

money rules today. a socialist economy accounts for that, by controlling how resources are used, and who benefits from them. today 1 individual can set up a mine next to a town and extract every last bit of ore, making millions, and leave the people of the community to deal with the mess-a few dozen workers might make a livelihood for a few years, but that's the extent of the benefit the people see from that resource. so ideally, under a socialist structure, the resources of a region benefit the people of that region, not the exxons and foreigners.

at their core, corporations are very efficient when it comes to maximizing profit....ideally set up to do any number of thing. the problem is they are fascist institutions, they have a top down structure. so instead of dismantling them, ideally they should be democratized and ruled by the people that make them run-the workers.

the idea is to put that power you are so afraid of falling into the wrong hands-put that power into the hands of the workers. in every industry/institution.

that will bring about a fundamental shift in who that power serves. as opposed to serving the wealthy minority, as it does today, it will serve the hard working majority, the people that actually deserve it.

its simplistic and a poor answer, but that's the idea.

but you should realize, i'm a minority even among socialists. libertarian socialism is what i am suggesting.

Can you name me one socialist country which belongs to the EU which you think meets your standard?

no but don't you think it interesting that when people use their power over the managers and owners, when people stand up for themselves to their governments, when they go on strike every other week, like they do in europe, isn't it interesting that those countries are leaning towards socialists policies? people want socialism, it just has such a negative connotation, especially in the US, its hard for people to except it. and that's no accident. power serves the wealthy minority, and they want it to stay that way, while under a libertarian/socialist system, power serves the people, because it IS the people.

Because i'm pretty sure (and i'm not feigning pretense here) that all of the countries which you would consider to currently be socialist have at their highest levels the EXACT SAME RULERS as the "evil" western "capitalist" country, which in fact is a country (the USA) that exhibits more than TWO THIRDS OF THE TENANTS OF COMMUNISM AS DESCRIBED BY KARL MARX (a Jew and a Freemason, FYI).

the difference is the countries in europe have a working class that doesnt' sit down while their rights and jobs are taken away, they stand up for themselves. and ultimately people have the power, whatever system, its just a matter of using that power. and in europe, to some extent, they have used that power, for centuries, to the point where even their capitalist masters must account for them when they make decisions, else they face a company wide strike. and even government is looking out for them, to some extent, because that working class hasn't been sitting down over the years.

but its hard to motivate the people enough to strike, especially if the media is as subservient as it is in the US. even unions have become smeared in the media, which a union is simply an organized labor force. but ideally we should set up a system where the authority is either the people, or is motivated enough to serve the people, without having to go through trouble of striking every few years to level the playing field.


as to the bold, that's news to me.

Going down this line, i foresee that perhaps you will argue something to the effect of "but these are not TRUE socialist countries". Well of COURSE my good friend. But then your argument must account for the fact that, just like "true" communism, man has failed to actually implement and account for such a system as you describe.

In fact, TRUE communism WAS tried, by Trotsky and his followers (who bitterly opposed Stalin [sometimes illuminist puppet] and his Elite-ruled bureaucratic version of "communism"), but he and they were ruthlessly persecuted by the faux-communist regime that was owned by, and in fact nothing more than a staged antagonist to, the very same elite banking interests that now exert so much influence upon nearly every civilized country on earth and financed and organize ALL of the worlds major international bodies, councils, and NGOs.

interesting. i think you and i both agree that it must be a libertarian structure, whether capitalist or socialist, to prevent a wealthy elite from influencing the authority. if the people are the authority, if the workers make the decisions, it would be hard to influence 15000 votes, or get them to vote on something that isn't in their best interest..

So if you are proposing socialism as a solution ... TRUE socialism ...
HOW ARE YOU PROPOSING WE ACHIEVE IT?

Certainly i would hope you propose to work it OUTSIDE of the CURRENT system ... ie. the OWNED international elite scheme? Or would you perhaps be content to have THEM arrange it for you?
Would you trust them?

its going to take something like a worldwide worker revolution....but that's not as hard to achieve as someone might think. it could start anywhere....ultimately the people have the power, labor rules, and if we use that power we could do any number of things. a worldwide general strike. shut it all down, give them nothing to rule

The bottom line is that "CROOKED" PEOPLE CAN AND WILL WORK TO CORRUPT ANY SYSTEM AND CAN AND WILL WORK TO MAKE THAT SYSTEM WORK FOR THEM.

agreed.

its about minimizing that factor. by spreading the power out to everyone. libertarianism/anarchy-they can influence a few, but everyone?

i think a key factor in all of this is education,/media. people need to be informed.

And people, PLEASE.
If you have to ask who "they" are,
ask yourself this:
who is it that decided the people of Europe would have to continually re-vote on EU\Lisbon sovereignty treatise until they got it "right"?

You really chalk that kind of stuff up to one bad leader?
You don't perhaps think there is a BROADER power base behind these types of treacherous trickery?
Are you not angered by the contempt with which your real masters treat you?

[/quote]