Here's something for all you Commies.

BetterRadio

The New York Times ain't so nice now.

Seriously, I hope this is an eye opener. Capitalism reigns. Rising tide lifts all boats.

ryan198

Are you aware that in every single instance that neoliberal capitalism has been installed it has created worse living conditions for the entire locality -Canada, US, Britain, Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, Russia, China, Japan, etc. it has NEVER EVER WORKED. So while you're celebrating the reign of terror that is neoliberal capitalism more than 1 billion people in this world live on less than $1 a day mostly as a direct result of the forms of exploitation capitalism endorses.

Check out David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism", Henry Giroux's "Terror of Neoliberalism", or Lawrence Grossbergs "Caught in the Crossfire", for a more nuanced argument against this latest form of capitalism. I'm not saying communism is the alternative, but that there has to be a better way than what we're doing right now...this article only adds fuel to that fire.

BetterRadio

ryan198 wrote:

Are you aware that in every single instance that neoliberal capitalism has been installed it has created worse living conditions for the entire locality -Canada, US, Britain, Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, Russia, China, Japan, etc. it has NEVER EVER WORKED. So while you're celebrating the reign of terror that is neoliberal capitalism more than 1 billion people in this world live on less than $1 a day mostly as a direct result of the forms of exploitation capitalism endorses.

"All of us are ignorant, if not misinformed, on vast numbers of things. What makes experts different is that they dare not admit it. That is also what makes experts dangerous."

China was a socialist economy. In the past few years they have let more privatization i.e. land and business ownership. China is still a hellhole but not as bad as it used to be. RUSSIA?! ARE YOU KIDDING?!? I believe that I'd take a free market over command any day. Lets see: Dicatator telling me what to do, when to do it, if I don't, death. or Free market? I can make my own choices? YAY!!!

Besides, this was about the fact that the left NYT was using capitalist principles.

ryan198

BetterRadio wrote:

"All of us are ignorant, if not misinformed, on vast numbers of things. What makes experts different is that they dare not admit it. That is also what makes experts dangerous."

China was a socialist economy. In the past few years they have let more privatization i.e. land and business ownership. China is still a hellhole but not as bad as it used to be. RUSSIA?! ARE YOU KIDDING?!? I believe that I'd take a free market over command any day. Lets see: Dicatator telling me what to do, when to do it, if I don't, death. or Free market? I can make my own choices? YAY!!!

Besides, this was about the fact that the left NYT was using capitalist principles.

Yes NYT using capitalist principles...exploiting their workers to make more money for the very rich. Same thing that has happened in China and Russia. Furthermore, neoliberal capitalism destroyed the Argentinian economy. Though I have never met them the three authors that I mentioned have all suggested that people present alternate conclusions to what they have found with the evidence that we have seen over and over.

As for a dictactor telling you what to do, and FREE CHOICES (such a fallacy), you have much to learn padwan. If the US were a free society shouldn't you be able to attend whatever school wherever you wanted, or not attend school, or not work. In other words what's the difference between do this or die (which wasn't exactly the case but whatever), and if you don't work for this corporation which has taken over all local businesses you die. I would argue not much.

PS- who does privatization, businessownership, and homeownership benefit? The very rich and the very few. It's no coincidence that as neoliberal capitalism has proliferated the US 5% of the people own 85% of its total wealth.

bootlegger10

ryan198 wrote:

I'm not saying communism is the alternative, but that there has to be a better way than what we're doing right now...this article only adds fuel to that fire.

There are problems with any economic setup. I don't think you are going to get a perfect one. I'll take capitalism over the rest.

BetterRadio

ryan198 wrote:

Yes NYT using capitalist principles...exploiting their workers to make more money for the very rich. Same thing that has happened in China and Russia. Furthermore, neoliberal capitalism destroyed the Argentinian economy. Though I have never met them the three authors that I mentioned have all suggested that people present alternate conclusions to what they have found with the evidence that we have seen over and over.

As for a dictactor telling you what to do, and FREE CHOICES (such a fallacy), you have much to learn padwan. If the US were a free society shouldn't you be able to attend whatever school wherever you wanted, or not attend school, or not work. In other words what's the difference between do this or die (which wasn't exactly the case but whatever), and if you don't work for this corporation which has taken over all local businesses you die. I would argue not much.

PS- who does privatization, businessownership, and homeownership benefit? The very rich and the very few. It's no coincidence that as neoliberal capitalism has proliferated the US 5% of the people own 85% of its total wealth.

Thats the glory of the U.S., you dont have to work. Thats a free choice, bro. In Soviet Russia they had 0% unemployment. You know why? Because they see a guy standing on a corner and they go 'Here's a broom, sweep, now you're employed!'

I absolutely hate the term ''communist sympathizer", but unfortunately, you fit the criteria.

Cosmo

BetterRadio wrote:

The New York Times ain't so nice now.

Seriously, I hope this is an eye opener. Capitalism reigns. Rising tide lifts all boats.

...
Those differences are what you'd expect to see in any business. Wages and benefits are a part of the cost of doing business... what's not listed out are all the other things that run a newpaper... machinery, buildings, transportation, utiliites, everything else.
Just look at your own job... compare the wages of you and your co-workers to the revenues taken in... the graph will probably look the same, except the numbers on the Y Axis would differ. That's just how business works.
...
P.S. I don't live in New York and I don't read the New York Times.

BetterRadio

Cosmo wrote:

...
Those differences are what you'd expect to see in any business. Wages and benefits are a part of the cost of doing business... what's not listed out are all the other things that run a newpaper... machinery, buildings, transportation, utiliites, everything else.
Just look at your own job... compare the wages of you and your co-workers to the revenues taken in... the graph will probably look the same, except the numbers on the Y Axis would differ. That's just how business works.
...
P.S. I don't live in New York and I don't read the New York Times.

Uh yea, I don't have a job. I'm still in high school. Almost in college though.

Cosmo

BetterRadio wrote:

Uh yea, I don't have a job. I'm still in high school. Almost in college though.

...
Well... when you get into the real world... you'll find out that this graph is the same in proportion if you work at the New York Times or Boeing Aircraft or General Electric or McDonalds or Joe's Small Business. Operating cost are huge.

ryan198

BetterRadio wrote:

"All of us are ignorant, if not misinformed, on vast numbers of things. What makes experts different is that they dare not admit it. That is also what makes experts dangerous."

I was just thinking about your statement here...does the fact that we cannot possibly know everything about anything imply that we should not try to learn as much as we can about a subject so as to change a current inequity or problem? Should we not strive to be an expert at something? If so then I disagree with the main thrust of your argument here. If not then what do you mean here?

cornnifer

BetterRadio wrote:

. In Soviet Russia they had 0% unemployment. You know why? Because they see a guy standing on a corner and they go 'Here's a broom, sweep, now you're employed!'

.

What's wrong with that? The man with the broom was also, probably, afforded life's necessaties in exchange for his sweeping.
"from each that which he is capable, to each that which he needs" makes alot of sense to me. A lot more sense than "from most, way more than necessary, to those, not nearly enough".

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

there has to be a better way than what we're doing right now

Yes...like actual capitalism.

farfromglorified

cornnifer wrote:

"from each that which he is capable, to each that which he needs" makes alot of sense to me

Then go rob a bank.

cornnifer

farfromglorified wrote:

Then go rob a bank.

I don't quite follow your line of sarcasm. What does robbing a bank have to do with contributing to society what you are capable of and, in exchange, recieving back the things you need?

farfromglorified

cornnifer wrote:

I don't quite follow your line of sarcasm. What does robbing a bank have to do with contributing to society what you are capable of and, in exchange, recieving back the things you need?

I'm not being sarcastic at all. If ability is to be a slave to need as proposed in your quote, then you should of course feel free to rob a bank whenever you wish. If "capability" and "need" are the only things that dictates a man's rights, you might as well bring back slavery too.

jlew24asu

just so I understand correctly. Are there people here who would rather have communism as opposed to capitalism?

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes...like actual capitalism.

Yeah but to get to the actual capitalism that Ayn Rand proposes would suggest that in the blink of an eye we could reduce historical physical, mental, and social inequities ... further it would suggest that once those who gained power from actual capitalism wouldn't fall into the same trap that contemporary neoliberal capitalists have fallen for. Karl Marx was right in many respects, and the end will come for this reign of terror that we live under right now.

ryan198

jlew24asu wrote:

just so I understand correctly. Are there people here who would rather have communism as opposed to capitalism?

I'm not saying this is what you are suggesting with this question, but why is it if you are anti-capitalism you must be pro-communism? I'm saying that there are desirable aspects of both and that perhaps they could be brought together to form a more benificial livlihood for all.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

Yeah but to get to the actual capitalism that Ayn Rand proposes would suggest that in the blink of an eye we could reduce historical physical, mental, and social inequities ...

No. It suggests that you can reduce present inequities.

further it would suggest that once those who gained power from actual capitalism wouldn't fall into the same trap that contemporary neoliberal capitalists have fallen for.

No. It suggests that such people would have no right to build those traps for you.

Karl Marx was right in many respects, and the end will come for this reign of terror that we live under right now.

Predicting the downfall of societies is like shooting fish in a barrel.

jlew24asu

ryan198 wrote:

I'm saying that there are desirable aspects of both and that perhaps they could be brought together to form a more benificial livlihood for all.

I was simply asking a question. but if thats true, lets do it. but no system will be perfect and there will always but poor unhappy people. as well as happy rich ones.....

ryan198

jlew24asu wrote:

I was simply asking a question. but if thats true, lets do it. but no system will be perfect and there will always but poor unhappy people. as well as happy rich ones.....

I'm arguing that just because that has historically been the case it does not preclued us from trying to be the first that doesn't have that.

jlew24asu

capitalism has made me a very happy man. I have a hard time feeling sorry someone who only holds their hand out instead of working hard. I started at the bottom, came from a lower middle class family and now am very well off with hard work and determination. I give to charity and try to do good things for people when I can.

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

No. It suggests that you can reduce present inequities.quote]
Through economics...quite a middle class, white, heterosexist, sexist, way to think huh? Oh wait...Ayn Rand was all of those things.

ryan198

jlew24asu wrote:

capitalism has made me a very happy man. I have a hard time feeling sorry someone who only holds their hand out instead of working hard. I started at the bottom, came from a lower middle class family and now am very well off with hard work and determination. I give to charity and try to do good things for people when I can.

It's nice that it has worked for you, but for a majority of people in this country it hasn't. Consider the fact that 26% of this country lives in poverty and that 75% of all families on welfare have at least one member of the family working a full-time job as an argument against hard work and determination necessarily leading to a better life.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

Through economics...quite a middle class, white, heterosexist, sexist, way to think huh? Oh wait...Ayn Rand was all of those things.

When in doubt, huh?

Rand believed in economic inequities, as do I. Those inequities had nothing to do with "heterosexism", "sexism", or classism. They have everything to do with justice.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

It's nice that it has worked for you, but for a majority of people in this country it hasn't.

Then perhaps they should stop living off its spoils.

ryan198

I would argue that economics has a lot to do with justice, but I guess we disagree on that.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

I would argue that economics has a lot to do with justice, but I guess we disagree on that.

No, we'd totally agree there. Pure economic capitalism is all about justice. And that applies both to the rich and the poor.

BetterRadio

Well, I guess while your high school economics class was teaching you how to write checks, my AP Macroeconomics is teaching me the facts. No bias, just facts.


Capitalism is better. You live in America. If can deny that this is the cleanest, most advanced country in the world, well, you've got lots to learn.

*I don't think that other countries aren't great. I loved Europe. I wouldn't want to live there permenently, due to the socialist tendencies (I just got a band name ) but it is nice.

Capitalism is evolution. Social Darwinism is in effect. People are so quick to attack the ''elite rich'' for what they have. Well, Guess what, most of them worked their asses off and took very dangerous risks for it. I'm sure in 3rd grade they didn't say ''Little Billy Gates what do you want to do when you grow up?" "Oh I want to be the richest man ever!!!!"

Dude went to Harvard. Dude made money. Whats wrong with him being successful? You socialists want to punish success, but on the other spectrum, would you be so quick to turn down money in favor for your ''beliefs'' and ''other people''? I sure would'nt. But thats just me, facing the truth of life. Human interest is always in play, and human interest is to get ahead. Not just humans, but every living thing. I dont believe a lion attacks a zebra just to fuck over the tigers. "Rarr goddamn tigers, rely on the leopards compassion to provide for you...raawor"

Well, my communist friend, I am a lion. And I love the taste of sweet zebra that I worked for.

ryan198

BetterRadio wrote:

Well, I guess while your high school economics class was teaching you how to write checks, my AP Macroeconomics is teaching me the facts. No bias, just facts.


Capitalism is better. You live in America. If can deny that this is the cleanest, most advanced country in the world, well, you've got lots to learn.

*I don't think that other countries aren't great. I loved Europe. I wouldn't want to live there permenently, due to the socialist tendencies (I just got a band name ) but it is nice.

Capitalism is evolution. Social Darwinism is in effect. People are so quick to attack the ''elite rich'' for what they have. Well, Guess what, most of them worked their asses off and took very dangerous risks for it. I'm sure in 3rd grade they didn't say ''Little Billy Gates what do you want to do when you grow up?" "Oh I want to be the richest man ever!!!!"

Dude went to Harvard. Dude made money. Whats wrong with him being successful? You socialists want to punish success, but on the other spectrum, would you be so quick to turn down money in favor for your ''beliefs'' and ''other people''? I sure would'nt. But thats just me, facing the truth of life. Human interest is always in play, and human interest is to get ahead. Not just humans, but every living thing. I dont believe a lion attacks a zebra just to fuck over the tigers. "Rarr goddamn tigers, rely on the leopards compassion to provide for you...raawor"

Well, my communist friend, I am a lion. And I love the taste of sweet zebra that I worked for.

Hahaha...ok I am not communist just because I oppose capitalism, and Bill Gates got into Harvard, stole some ideas from IBM, ran a monopoly, has pushed his way around the law, and somehow you consider him successful? Please...the dude lied, stole, and cheated his way to the top. He didn't work hard, that's just what corporate television owned by the really rich people in the US want you to believe...that way when 26% of the US lives in poverty it isn't there fault even though every significant ecomonic 'advancement' (which is what your HS Macroeconomics teacher told you) has resulted in economic gain, on the whole, for the really rich, and, as a result, has widened the gap between rich and poor. Subsequently, in a country that is run on capital, this gap has allowed the really rich to enjoy better education, food, health, access to better lawyers, jobs, etc. just by being born into it. Sure there are a few examples of hard work=success, but that's not always the case. Listen to PJ's version 5/31/06 Unemployable for the Eddie Vedder explanation.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

Bill Gates got into Harvard, stole some ideas from IBM, ran a monopoly, has pushed his way around the law, and somehow you consider him successful? Please...the dude lied, stole, and cheated his way to the top.

Bill Gates didn't steal anything from IBM. IBM was too foolish to realize that the future of computing was in software, not hardware and failed to correctly negotiate acquisition terms for DOS.

Bill Gates arguably "stole" ideas from Apple and Xerox, but he succeeded where they failed by realizing the value of what he was doing and correctly understanding the future market. Furthermore, it's incredibly ridiculous to suggest that Bill Gates "stole" those ideas in any different way than you've stolen 90% of your knowledge in life. Both were acquired by example, not by duplicity.

Gates' fortune comes from something you seem actively interested in denying or ignoring: the mind.

He didn't work hard, that's just what corporate television owned by the really rich people in the US want you to believe...that way when 26% of the US lives in poverty it isn't there fault even though every significant ecomonic 'advancement' (which is what your HS Macroeconomics teacher told you) has resulted in economic gain, on the whole, for the really rich, and, as a result, has widened the gap between rich and poor. Subsequently, in a country that is run on capital, this gap has allowed the really rich to enjoy better education, food, health, access to better lawyers, jobs, etc. just by being born into it. Sure there are a few examples of hard work=success, but that's not always the case. Listen to PJ's version 5/31/06 Unemployable for the Eddie Vedder explanation.

Poverty is not the guilt of the rich in absence of force. And since the poor receive more forced money from the rich than the rich receive from the poor, I'm wondering where the guilt you're claiming truly comes from.