It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionHow long until Poland goes down the drain?(278 posts)(278 posts)
(278 posts)
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
15
19
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 28, 2015
low rated
avatar
jamyskis: The problem is that without the corrupting influence of capitalism, communism works just fine.

When people strive collectively to achieve a greater goal than accumulating wealth, the system works beautifully. When the system is abused to protect the powerful elite, it doesn't.

What people forget is that self-evaluation and freedom of expression and opinion are core tenets of communist doctrine

punish greed.
avatar
JudasIscariot: It's without the corrupting influence of people themselves. Your first statement sounds similar to the "Guns kill people!" line of thinking used by anti-gun lobbyists in the U.S. :) The gun (capitalism) doesn't kill (corrupt) people by itself, it needs an actual person to use it that way :)

Define the "greater goal" in your second statement, please. What is the greater goal?

If the system is abused then there are proper laws made to prevent the abuse. Why do you think there anti-monopoly laws in the U.S. and Europe?

Self-evaluation and freedom of expression are also practiced in a capitalist system. In fact, you can take whatever bit of wit you may have, condense it to a single statement, put it on a t-shirt, and sell it for a nice profit in a capitalist society/system :)
Yes, guns don't kill people but that doesn't mean, we should be letting psychopaths and stupid people have access to them. :) Capitalism by itself doesn't corrupt but that doesn't mean capitalism in a world where the majority of human beings are selfish, greedy, power hungry, stupid and have own group preference won't lead to corruption. :)
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
dick1982: You're proving my argument.
avatar
Gremlion: I don't see arguments.
At best you posted equivalent of "Turtles are slower than rabbits"="Socialism development after 1960+ was slower than capitalism".
It doesn't say that system doesn't work.
Enjoy your unpaid internships and 90 hours weeks, which wouldn't let you buy a house in US because they cost $500k upward.
avatar
dick1982: vietcong barely survived the previous financial crash. china basically built ghost cities for the sake of fake GDP growth. they're the worse example of captialism. fool.
avatar
Gremlion: Different cases:
US borrowed money from future generations, built cities on these money, when growth halted they were abandoned. (beating dead horse of Detroit there)

China build ghost cities as preparations for nuclear war.

It's hard to tell when abscess of American debt would pop, but it definitely would try to kill as much debt holders as possible.
Errm Detroit died because the Big Three auto manufacturers couldn't keep up with their Japanese counterparts. The factories, which could only employ unionized auto workers, could not meet the demands of the unions, whatever they happened to be at the time. On top of that, the city itself had nothing else BUT the Big Three automakers being the economic backbone of the city itself. It was the equivalent of a town whose only product was coal or some other non-renewable resource: the resource ran out and so did the money.

It didn't help that the city also had issues with the way it was managed by its mayors and the like. While I am not discounting that there may have been some borrowing, the economic death of Detroit was actually a lot more complicated and nuanced than just over-exuberant borrowing :)
avatar
JudasIscariot: It's without the corrupting influence of people themselves. Your first statement sounds similar to the "Guns kill people!" line of thinking used by anti-gun lobbyists in the U.S. :) The gun (capitalism) doesn't kill (corrupt) people by itself, it needs an actual person to use it that way :)

Define the "greater goal" in your second statement, please. What is the greater goal?

If the system is abused then there are proper laws made to prevent the abuse. Why do you think there anti-monopoly laws in the U.S. and Europe?

Self-evaluation and freedom of expression are also practiced in a capitalist system. In fact, you can take whatever bit of wit you may have, condense it to a single statement, put it on a t-shirt, and sell it for a nice profit in a capitalist society/system :)
avatar
monkeydelarge: Yes, guns don't kill people but that doesn't mean, we should be letting psychopaths and stupid people have access to them. :) Capitalism by itself doesn't corrupt but that doesn't mean capitalism in a world where the majority of human beings are selfish, greedy, power hungry, stupid and have own group preference won't lead to corruption. :)
We don't let psychopaths have access to guns, actually :) AFAIK, there is the Brady bill with its 7 day waiting period and there's also the rule that felons cannot own firearms in the U.S. :) Of course, both the psychopaths and the felons who wish to have a firearm just get those guns illegally regardless of the laws in place :)

As for greed, it is my personal theory that it started out as something necessary for survival. Think about it, back in the days when we were still living in caves, people had no idea whether they were going to have enough food so they learned to accumulate as much food as possible in order to survive the lean years :)
Post edited October 28, 2015 by JudasIscariot
Posted October 28, 2015
low rated
avatar
Gremlion: I don't see arguments.
At best you posted equivalent of "Turtles are slower than rabbits"="Socialism development after 1960+ was slower than capitalism".
It doesn't say that system doesn't work.
Enjoy your unpaid internships and 90 hours weeks, which wouldn't let you buy a house in US because they cost $500k upward.

Different cases:
US borrowed money from future generations, built cities on these money, when growth halted they were abandoned. (beating dead horse of Detroit there)

China build ghost cities as preparations for nuclear war.

It's hard to tell when abscess of American debt would pop, but it definitely would try to kill as much debt holders as possible.
avatar
JudasIscariot: Errm Detroit died because the Big Three auto manufacturers couldn't keep up with their Japanese counterparts. The factories, which could only employ unionized auto workers, could not meet the demands of the unions, whatever they happened to be at the time. On top of that, the city itself had nothing else BUT the Big Three automakers being the economic backbone of the city itself. It was the equivalent of a town whose only product was coal or some other non-renewable resource: the resource ran out and so did the money.

It didn't help that the city also had issues with the way it was managed by its mayors and the like. While I am not discounting that there may have been some borrowing, the economic death of Detroit was actually a lot more complicated and nuanced than just over-exuberant borrowing :)
avatar
monkeydelarge: Yes, guns don't kill people but that doesn't mean, we should be letting psychopaths and stupid people have access to them. :) Capitalism by itself doesn't corrupt but that doesn't mean capitalism in a world where the majority of human beings are selfish, greedy, power hungry, stupid and have own group preference won't lead to corruption. :)
avatar
JudasIscariot: We don't let psychopaths have access to guns, actually :) AFAIK, there is the Brady bill with its 7 day waiting period and there's also the rule that felons cannot own firearms in the U.S. :) Of course, both the psychopaths and the felons who wish to have a firearm just get those guns illegally regardless of the laws in place :)
A 7 day waiting period will prevent psychopaths and stupid people from having guns? Maybe the really really impatient psychopaths will just use knives or baseball bats instead. I'm sure, most psychopaths will just wait the 7 days. And just because someone is not a felon doesn't mean, he or she is not a psychopath and not stupid. There are psychopaths who haven't been caught yet or psychopaths who are still young so they haven't had the opportunity yet to do what psychopaths do.
Post edited October 28, 2015 by monkeydelarge
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
JudasIscariot: Errm Detroit died because the Big Three auto manufacturers couldn't keep up with their Japanese counterparts. The factories, which could only employ unionized auto workers, could not meet the demands of the unions, whatever they happened to be at the time. On top of that, the city itself had nothing else BUT the Big Three automakers being the economic backbone of the city itself. It was the equivalent of a town whose only product was coal or some other non-renewable resource: the resource ran out and so did the money.

It didn't help that the city also had issues with the way it was managed by its mayors and the like. While I am not discounting that there may have been some borrowing, the economic death of Detroit was actually a lot more complicated and nuanced than just over-exuberant borrowing :)
I'd like to elaborate:
Detroit started to grow because its final customers were able to borrow money to buy cars.
It expanded market (before cheap credits not many people could afford a car) with explosive speed, after saturation "resource ran out".

On mayor level huge part of management is independent from anything.
People need to eat - you organize delivery of food
People need to shit - canalization
People need to sleep - housing
and so on...
Yeah, there is lobbyism, which food chain would gets rights on land for supermarket, winner would be the one who offers more money to people in power.
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
JudasIscariot: Errm Detroit died because the Big Three auto manufacturers couldn't keep up with their Japanese counterparts. The factories, which could only employ unionized auto workers, could not meet the demands of the unions, whatever they happened to be at the time. On top of that, the city itself had nothing else BUT the Big Three automakers being the economic backbone of the city itself. It was the equivalent of a town whose only product was coal or some other non-renewable resource: the resource ran out and so did the money.

It didn't help that the city also had issues with the way it was managed by its mayors and the like. While I am not discounting that there may have been some borrowing, the economic death of Detroit was actually a lot more complicated and nuanced than just over-exuberant borrowing :)

We don't let psychopaths have access to guns, actually :) AFAIK, there is the Brady bill with its 7 day waiting period and there's also the rule that felons cannot own firearms in the U.S. :) Of course, both the psychopaths and the felons who wish to have a firearm just get those guns illegally regardless of the laws in place :)
avatar
monkeydelarge: A 7 day waiting period will prevent psychopaths and stupid people from having guns? Maybe the really really impatient psychopaths will just use knives or baseball bats instead. I'm sure, most psychopaths will just wait the 7 days. And just because someone is not a felon doesn't mean, he or she is not a psychopath and not stupid. There are psychopaths who haven't been caught yet or psychopaths who are still young so they haven't had the opportunity yet to do what psychopaths do.
I stated this earlier:

Of course, both the psychopaths and the felons who wish to have a firearm just get those guns illegally regardless of the laws in place :)
Posted October 28, 2015
low rated
avatar
JudasIscariot: As for greed, it is my personal theory that it started out as something necessary for survival. Think about it, back in the days when we were still living in caves, people had no idea whether they were going to have enough food so they learned to accumulate as much food as possible in order to survive the lean years :)
Actually, humans survived to today because of socialism. Humans decided a long time ago, it would be better if they all worked together in tribes instead of being enemies of each other so they could try to live in more fancy caves and own more fancy caveman material possessions. Letting other people from your tribe starve to death and die while your family has all the food is not smart. Because division of labor is necessary for a tribe to become stronger. And there is strength in numbers. Something that is important if your tribe is attacked by an army of psychopaths or desperate people. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Everyone has something to offer to their tribe. So from a cold calculating point of view, letting those who can't feed themselves die is not letting the useless be removed from your tribe. And when people are starving to death, they become desperate and will try to take the food from you with the use of violence. Sure, if you are armed and trained, you could defend yourself for some time but eventually they will win because they outnumber you. Is it really a good idea to force people who could be your fellow tribesmen into trying to kill you and your loved ones? People can't afford to have morals when they and their loved ones are dying. And greed is bad for people's life time security because one day, people may be able to accumulate as much food as possible but then one day, misfortune happens and those people are unable to accumulate anymore food. For example, the provider of a family could suffer a hunting accident. Then his wound becomes infected and he dies. And because of this family's "I got mine, fuck you" mentality, nobody outside the family will want to help them when they are starving to death or this family might be alone because everyone else in their tribe died off. If most of the ancestors of people today lived in tribes that thought "greed is good", humanity would of become extinct a long time ago. OR we would still be living in caves, living really shitty and short lives. There is a reason why most people are capable of being altruistic even though the people in power do everything to destroy this inside of us because it doesn't serve them.

And if you look closely at a family unit. You see that there is socialism taking place inside a family unit. And there is a reason why... Because socialism works and benefits everyone. If the provider of the family, the father and husband, lets his wife and kids starve to death, because "I got mine, fuck you", how long before this family ceases to be a family? Then, there was basically no point for the father and husband to start a family. And he helped bring children into the world and cursed them to live a horrible shitty life full of suffering. Not a very nice thing to do to innocent human beings that only exist because of your actions... And of course, nobody is responsible for people who are not their children but that doesn't justify a "greed is good and fuck everyone else" mentality.

It is kind of funny that people who are conservatives today, love capitalism and hate socialism but have no problem with socialism when it comes to their families. This just shows, "conservatives" have been brainwashed to hate socialism because that is what the people in power want. OR they are one of the few people who benefit from the current way of things so they want it continue. OR they just despise everyone who is not family. The people in power want this, so they don't have to spend most of the tax dollars on people but instead spend it on shit that benefits them. :) Because the people in power, see those who have less power as garbage and a threat. They want us to constantly fight for our lives so we are too busy doing that instead of focusing on how bad we are getting fucked over.
But things are so bad today, in most countries, all it takes is an hour of clear and intelligent thinking to realize, you are getting fucked over by those who really have it good.
Post edited October 28, 2015 by monkeydelarge
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
JudasIscariot: Also, under a capitalist system the aforementioned employee with the child has the choice of changing jobs if they find the employer to be unbearable.
That choice only works under the assumption that there are enough other open jobs readily available. Which is not a given for everybody.
The social & economic pressure to have a job means that more often than not people cannot speak up against bad employers. Which is way the state needs to give some level of protection and limit the power of the employers.
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
JudasIscariot: Also, under a capitalist system the aforementioned employee with the child has the choice of changing jobs if they find the employer to be unbearable.
avatar
immi101: That choice only works under the assumption that there are enough other open jobs readily available. Which is not a given for everybody.
The social & economic pressure to have a job means that more often than not people cannot speak up against bad employers. Which is way the state needs to give some level of protection and limit the power of the employers.
No it doesn't. Jesus Christ, where do you think jobs come from? I'd really love an answer to that one. Do they grow on trees? Are they air-dropped in? If one cannot find a job, one should be free to create his own business, which could then spawn even more jobs. Success is its own multiplier. Millions of people have done it, millions of people have become millionaires because of it. The State is not, nor should not be, in charge of creating an economic employment system. In fact, the State usually does the best for an economy when it gets the hell out of the way.
Posted October 28, 2015
low rated
avatar
immi101: That choice only works under the assumption that there are enough other open jobs readily available. Which is not a given for everybody.
The social & economic pressure to have a job means that more often than not people cannot speak up against bad employers. Which is way the state needs to give some level of protection and limit the power of the employers.
avatar
Emob78: No it doesn't. Jesus Christ, where do you think jobs come from? I'd really love an answer to that one. Do they grow on trees? Are they air-dropped in? If one cannot find a job, one should be free to create his own business, which could then spawn even more jobs. Success is its own multiplier. Millions of people have done it, millions of people have become millionaires because of it. The State is not, nor should not be, in charge of creating an economic employment system. In fact, the State usually does the best for an economy when it gets the hell out of the way.
You need lots of $$$ to create your own business(at least a business that will allow you to make enough money to survive on). How do you get that $$$? By working a job that pays you enough... So no job that pays you enough = fucked in life for the majority of people in this world. Easy for all those people who were able to work in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s to say, they were able to easily start their own business. That is because in the past, there were a lot of decent paying jobs available for people. Not anymore. And you also forgot that small businesses can't compete with large corporations. So starting your own business is not going to = bling bling millionaire lifestyle nowadays unless you are really lucky or did something that was very original. So more decent paying jobs means more small businesses. So employers not being free to do whatever the fuck they want to do(like use slave labor, outsourcing etc) is a good thing.
Post edited October 28, 2015 by monkeydelarge
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
Emob78: No it doesn't. Jesus Christ, where do you think jobs come from? I'd really love an answer to that one. Do they grow on trees? Are they air-dropped in? If one cannot find a job, one should be free to create his own business, which could then spawn even more jobs. Success is its own multiplier. Millions of people have done it, millions of people have become millionaires because of it. The State is not, nor should not be, in charge of creating an economic employment system. In fact, the State usually does the best for an economy when it gets the hell out of the way.
avatar
monkeydelarge: You need lots of $$$ to create your own business(at least a business that will allow you to make enough money to survive on). How do you get that $$$? By working a job that pays you enough... So no job that pays you enough = fucked for the majority of people in this world. Easy for all those people who were able to work in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s to say, they were able to easily start their own business. That is because in the past, there were a lot of decent paying jobs available for people. Not anymore.
Some of the most successful entrepreneurs got started by risking everything (selling their car/personal possessions, taking out a second mortgage on their house, etc) or got help from the government in the form of small business loans.

If you sit around waiting for your ship to come in or someone to throw a huge bag of cash at you out of the kindness of their heart, you'll be waiting a VERY long time.

You have to "carpe diem, seize the day boys" and get to work if you want to make it big in this world. Because coffee's for closers, only.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PE2hSqVnk
Posted October 28, 2015
low rated
avatar
monkeydelarge: You need lots of $$$ to create your own business(at least a business that will allow you to make enough money to survive on). How do you get that $$$? By working a job that pays you enough... So no job that pays you enough = fucked for the majority of people in this world. Easy for all those people who were able to work in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s to say, they were able to easily start their own business. That is because in the past, there were a lot of decent paying jobs available for people. Not anymore.
avatar
TARFU: Some of the most successful entrepreneurs got started by risking everything (selling their car/personal possessions, taking out a second mortgage on their house, etc) or got help from the government in the form of small business loans.

If you sit around waiting for your ship to come in or someone to throw a huge bag of cash at you out of the kindness of their heart, you'll be waiting a VERY long time.

You have to "carpe diem, seize the day boys" and get to work if you want to make it big in this world. Because coffee's for closers, only.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PE2hSqVnk
You need $$$ in the first place to be able to take such a risk. I doubt the government will give you a small business loan if you are broke as a joke with no job. So the first step is getting a job. And not one that pays you peanuts. So if there is a shortage of such jobs... Yeah... And sometimes going all "carpe diem" on life, can backfire horribly. You shouldn't just focus on the success stories. You should focus on the big picture. A lot of people have gone all "carpe diem" on life and ended up like the person in the pic below.

"According to Bloomberg, 8 out of 10 entrepreneurs who start businesses fail within the first 18 months. A whopping 80% crash and burn."
- from a Forbes article
Attachments:
carpediemfail.jpg (178 Kb)
Post edited October 28, 2015 by monkeydelarge
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
TARFU: Some of the most successful entrepreneurs got started by risking everything (selling their car/personal possessions, taking out a second mortgage on their house, etc) or got help from the government in the form of small business loans.

If you sit around waiting for your ship to come in or someone to throw a huge bag of cash at you out of the kindness of their heart, you'll be waiting a VERY long time.

You have to "carpe diem, seize the day boys" and get to work if you want to make it big in this world. Because coffee's for closers, only.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PE2hSqVnk
avatar
monkeydelarge: You need $$$ in the first place to be able to take such a risk. I doubt the government will give you a small business loan if you are broke as a joke with no job. So the first step is getting a job. And not one that pays you peanuts. So if there is a shortage of such jobs... Yeah... And sometimes going all "carpe diem" on life, can backfire horribly. You shouldn't just focus on the success stories. You should focus on the big picture. A lot of people have gone all "carpe diem" on life and ended up like the person in the pic below.
Ok then, what about a situation like this:

The Papa John's restaurant franchise was founded in 1983 when "Papa" John Schnatter knocked out a broom closet in the back of his father's tavern, Mick's Lounge, in Jeffersonville, Indiana.[3] He then sold his 1971 Z28 Camaro to purchase $1,600 worth of used pizza equipment and began selling pizzas to the tavern's customers out of the converted closet.[4] His pizzas proved so popular that one year later he was able to move into an adjoining space. In 2009, Schnatter got the Camaro back by contacting the family that he sold the car to in 1983.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John's_Pizza

There's thousands of success stories similar to this, as well. It's a bit disingenuous to use a homeless person as part of your argument as many of them have psychiatric disorders that prevent them from being normal members of society. They aren't representative of the "average person".
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
monkeydelarge: You need $$$ in the first place to be able to take such a risk. I doubt the government will give you a small business loan if you are broke as a joke with no job. So the first step is getting a job. And not one that pays you peanuts. So if there is a shortage of such jobs... Yeah... And sometimes going all "carpe diem" on life, can backfire horribly. You shouldn't just focus on the success stories. You should focus on the big picture. A lot of people have gone all "carpe diem" on life and ended up like the person in the pic below.
avatar
TARFU: Ok then, what about a situation like this:

The Papa John's restaurant franchise was founded in 1983 when "Papa" John Schnatter knocked out a broom closet in the back of his father's tavern, Mick's Lounge, in Jeffersonville, Indiana.[3] He then sold his 1971 Z28 Camaro to purchase $1,600 worth of used pizza equipment and began selling pizzas to the tavern's customers out of the converted closet.[4] His pizzas proved so popular that one year later he was able to move into an adjoining space. In 2009, Schnatter got the Camaro back by contacting the family that he sold the car to in 1983.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John's_Pizza

There's thousands of success stories similar to this, as well. It's a bit disingenuous to use a homeless person as part of your argument as many of them have psychiatric disorders that prevent them from being normal members of society. They aren't representative of the "average person".
Look at the year. 1983. The world was different back then. And thousands of success stories aren't that much compared to billions of failure stories. Sometimes fortune favors the bold but usually it does not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ9s9mSDUyE

Let the babboon's death(in the video) not be in vain.
Post edited October 28, 2015 by monkeydelarge
Posted October 28, 2015
avatar
TARFU: Ok then, what about a situation like this:

The Papa John's restaurant franchise was founded in 1983 when "Papa" John Schnatter knocked out a broom closet in the back of his father's tavern, Mick's Lounge, in Jeffersonville, Indiana.[3] He then sold his 1971 Z28 Camaro to purchase $1,600 worth of used pizza equipment and began selling pizzas to the tavern's customers out of the converted closet.[4] His pizzas proved so popular that one year later he was able to move into an adjoining space. In 2009, Schnatter got the Camaro back by contacting the family that he sold the car to in 1983.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John's_Pizza

There's thousands of success stories similar to this, as well. It's a bit disingenuous to use a homeless person as part of your argument as many of them have psychiatric disorders that prevent them from being normal members of society. They aren't representative of the "average person".
I'd have my own business too by now if I wouldn't have to pay an absurd amount for renting the smallest apartment I could find near enough to my work in order to be able to get there via bike.

Seriously, every time those "success stories" used as an example start with someone using space in his relative's whatever, I can only roll my eyes. Those people were well off from the start compared to the average joe who has to gather a lot of money only to be allowed to stay alive.
Post edited October 28, 2015 by Klumpen0815
Posted October 29, 2015
avatar
JudasIscariot: As for greed, it is my personal theory that it started out as something necessary for survival. Think about it, back in the days when we were still living in caves, people had no idea whether they were going to have enough food so they learned to accumulate as much food as possible in order to survive the lean years :)
avatar
monkeydelarge: Actually, humans survived to today because of socialism. Humans decided a long time ago, it would be better if they all worked together in tribes instead of being enemies of each other so they could try to live in more fancy caves and own more fancy caveman material possessions. Letting other people from your tribe starve to death and die while your family has all the food is not smart. Because division of labor is necessary for a tribe to become stronger. And there is strength in numbers. Something that is important if your tribe is attacked by an army of psychopaths or desperate people. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Everyone has something to offer to their tribe. So from a cold calculating point of view, letting those who can't feed themselves die is not letting the useless be removed from your tribe. And when people are starving to death, they become desperate and will try to take the food from you with the use of violence. Sure, if you are armed and trained, you could defend yourself for some time but eventually they will win because they outnumber you. Is it really a good idea to force people who could be your fellow tribesmen into trying to kill you and your loved ones? People can't afford to have morals when they and their loved ones are dying. And greed is bad for people's life time security because one day, people may be able to accumulate as much food as possible but then one day, misfortune happens and those people are unable to accumulate anymore food. For example, the provider of a family could suffer a hunting accident. Then his wound becomes infected and he dies. And because of this family's "I got mine, fuck you" mentality, nobody outside the family will want to help them when they are starving to death or this family might be alone because everyone else in their tribe died off. If most of the ancestors of people today lived in tribes that thought "greed is good", humanity would of become extinct a long time ago. OR we would still be living in caves, living really shitty and short lives. There is a reason why most people are capable of being altruistic even though the people in power do everything to destroy this inside of us because it doesn't serve them.

And if you look closely at a family unit. You see that there is socialism taking place inside a family unit. And there is a reason why... Because socialism works and benefits everyone. If the provider of the family, the father and husband, lets his wife and kids starve to death, because "I got mine, fuck you", how long before this family ceases to be a family? Then, there was basically no point for the father and husband to start a family. And he helped bring children into the world and cursed them to live a horrible shitty life full of suffering. Not a very nice thing to do to innocent human beings that only exist because of your actions... And of course, nobody is responsible for people who are not their children but that doesn't justify a "greed is good and fuck everyone else" mentality.

It is kind of funny that people who are conservatives today, love capitalism and hate socialism but have no problem with socialism when it comes to their families. This just shows, "conservatives" have been brainwashed to hate socialism because that is what the people in power want. OR they are one of the few people who benefit from the current way of things so they want it continue. OR they just despise everyone who is not family. The people in power want this, so they don't have to spend most of the tax dollars on people but instead spend it on shit that benefits them. :) Because the people in power, see those who have less power as garbage and a threat. They want us to constantly fight for our lives so we are too busy doing that instead of focusing on how bad we are getting fucked over.
But things are so bad today, in most countries, all it takes is an hour of clear and intelligent thinking to realize, you are getting fucked over by those who really have it good.
lol...

Capitalism is the way of the universe and responsible for almost all technology.

Sharing in small groups is hardly socialism, but those who agree with that definition, who are against socialism, admit that it is fine for small groups, but not as a system of government.

Socialism retards the growth of technology, by requiring an inventive mind to do work, a number of times extra, equal to the entire population, just for extra working materials. It rewards laziness by giving an equal share to those that do nothing.

The negative effects of socialism are directly related to ones ability to affect the average of goods, which decreases with an increase in population.

Almost every complaint about capitalism is something caused by government, and not capitalism. The "big evil corporation" is usually caused by regulating the competition out of existence. Capitalism does not cause banks to give out stupid loans, just as you do not naturally loan money to strangers in the dark as a way to make money, lol.

Marxism is probably responsible for the majority of all murders in the 20th century. Word.
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
15
19
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionHow long until Poland goes down the drain?(278 posts)(278 posts)
(278 posts)