1%er Explains What All Intelligent People Already Knew

[dannyboys]

Folks are so wrapped up in "fair share" and "businesses are evil" that they aren't logical about the big picture at all. Schools are a damned disaster not teaching this shit.


Deregulate, kill ACA, and let the businesses open up jobs to people first, then ease in foreign tariffs over the next year to get businesses excited. I have a gut instinct that the market's playing hard and loose right now and it's going to depress globally next year (my guess is to where it was before Trump won. Minor, even unnoticeable if we can pump out some jobs before it hits.) I think Trump needs to watch the oil, I've heard rumors the Saudi's are going to drop production if Russia and the US/EU stand down a bit, that's going to bring gas prices up. I fucking hate to say it but it might behoove to entice the big three in Alaska to pump, maybe they'll concession to selling some portion in the US only so folks don't get thumped too hard. I also think that the UN is going to hammer us anyway they can trying to get Trump to play their ballgame.

Maybe once we get some business back he can work on a return to gold standard, maybe even ditching fed backings. Honestly, not holding my breath because the banks are going to temper tantrum so I think we /have/ to get the workers more comfortable for that hit.


I was thinking to start up a grocery delivery business as I'm constantly wanting one out here but no one else has done it - 'do my part' in making some jobs - problem is we've got a labor shortage so it's not exactly useful in a national scheme. If anyone's thinking to start a business in the lower 48 (buddies, yourself, etc.) send me the idea and I'll have my lawyers check it out!

I know of two 'grocery delivery' businesses that didn't survive one year.
Both started by people with lots of business experience/success.
The problem is the major grocery store chains won't let the delivery businesses in the door.
There's good money in delivering groceries. The grocery store chains can buy a cube van and paint it up with the grocery store's logo and hire some kid to fill the grocery lists and make the deliveries for minimum wage.
The idea is just short of a pizza joint hiring a kid to help make pizzas then hoping into his piece of shit car and delivering the pizza.
Owner:
"You get to keep half of the tips you make. Now fuck off! The pizza's getting cold!".

 

[rahtruelies]

This man made he millions when the country was going through extreme growth, and the young people are right, we are not going through extreme growth, we are no longer a developing country, we have developed, and are just hanging on,
while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

His dad died in prison for tax evasion. We need to raise the tax on the elites to get back to 70% for awhile, to pay off the debt, they got rich off the backs of the middle income, low income man, they can pay down the debt.

Everybody pay 10%....across the board. Problem solved

Problem Solved IF, spending is reduced to match revenues. The USA has never had a Revenue Problem. What we have had and still have is a Problem of excessive and largerly unConstitutional Spending. Three initial reductions-

1) Abolish Medicare Part D. No mend just a quick end.
2) As an interim measure while ACA is being dismantled- an immediate transfer of the tab for premium subsidy to the several States with the State of course free to simply abolish the subsidy.
3) After two years a reduction in the USA Military Budget (not including pensions and VA services) to a max of $200B. THAT is more than sufficient to keep Americans safe if spent intelligently. As part of the reduction 90% of all active duty generals/admirals to be dismissed from the services.

add two sources of Revenue-
1) a tariff on Asian imports geared to raise $150B/yr
2) end the Fed. Future additions to USA currency to be directly spent into circulation by the US Treasury.

So unless you can pay cash for meds the SS and disabled can go without. You must be a veteran.

Why do you feel that you are OWED free meds?

 

[August West]

His dad died in prison for tax evasion. We need to raise the tax on the elites to get back to 70% for awhile, to pay off the debt, they got rich off the backs of the middle income, low income man, they can pay down the debt.

Do you have ANY idea how long that would take? Let's look at this logically.

1. There isn't enough income among the wealthy to close the Obama deficit even if they were taxed at 100%. That right there eliminates your pipe dream of paying off the debt by jacking up tax rates.

2. If that wasn't enough for you, let's look at what rich people do when you jack up their tax rates. That's right, their income disappears, gets moved around, reclassified and you don't get anywhere near what you thought you would get.

3. To add insult to injury, what do you think Congress would do with a bunch of new revenue? Do you think they would:

A. Keep spending where it is and use the new revenue to pay down the debt? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
B. Increase spending slightly on infrastructure needs that Obama neglected, cut spending on pet projects and narrow the Obama deficit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
C. Go nuts and increase spending even more than the new (projected, not real) revenue and widen the Obama deficit? Yeah, that one.

The 'Obama deficit" came from your 2 wars (one started with lies) that were put on the credit card and tax cuts that weren`t needed. You`re dismissed right out of the starting gate when you exposed your ignorance.
How the Deficit Got This Big

The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits

The Obama deficit has been around his entire regime. He did nothing to reduce it, so It's his.

Two wars that Bush started and tax cuts made the deficit and digging our way out of the second worst financial crisis this country has ever seen was the priority. We`ll see how Trump plans to pay your bills. The third chart down tells you all you don`t know.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits

 

[Penelope]

This man made he millions when the country was going through extreme growth, and the young people are right, we are not going through extreme growth, we are no longer a developing country, we have developed, and are just hanging on,
while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

His dad died in prison for tax evasion. We need to raise the tax on the elites to get back to 70% for awhile, to pay off the debt, they got rich off the backs of the middle income, low income man, they can pay down the debt.

Everybody pay 10%....across the board. Problem solved

Problem Solved IF, spending is reduced to match revenues. The USA has never had a Revenue Problem. What we have had and still have is a Problem of excessive and largerly unConstitutional Spending. Three initial reductions-

1) Abolish Medicare Part D. No mend just a quick end.
2) As an interim measure while ACA is being dismantled- an immediate transfer of the tab for premium subsidy to the several States with the State of course free to simply abolish the subsidy.
3) After two years a reduction in the USA Military Budget (not including pensions and VA services) to a max of $200B. THAT is more than sufficient to keep Americans safe if spent intelligently. As part of the reduction 90% of all active duty generals/admirals to be dismissed from the services.

add two sources of Revenue-
1) a tariff on Asian imports geared to raise $150B/yr
2) end the Fed. Future additions to USA currency to be directly spent into circulation by the US Treasury.

So unless you can pay cash for meds the SS and disabled can go without. You must be a veteran.

Why do you feel that you are OWED free meds?

I have insurance and meds are not free, Part D is not free meds, its an insurance you pay a premium for and then a copay on meds . Are you a veteran?

 

[EverCurious]

I know of two 'grocery delivery' businesses that didn't survive one year.
Both started by people with lots of business experience/success.
The problem is the major grocery store chains won't let the delivery businesses in the door.
There's good money in delivering groceries. The grocery store chains can buy a cube van and paint it up with the grocery store's logo and hire some kid to fill the grocery lists and make the deliveries for minimum wage.
The idea is just short of a pizza joint hiring a kid to help make pizzas then hoping into his piece of shit car and delivering the pizza.
Owner:
"You get to keep half of the tips you make. Now fuck off! The pizza's getting cold!".

Well I'd do something more along the lines of a "personal shopper" I think. They fill out an online shopping list and the hire (I don't think I'd hire kids too much of a driving liability for my tastes) shop as normal then just take it the customers door. I'd buy a car for it myself, I'm not going to have some POS that backfires in the driveways or comes rolling up with the window shaking base lol No graphics or uniform, so I doubt any stores going to care, though I guess I better look into it - the folks up here didn't care because they don't want to mess with having a delivery person with our road conditions (I'd talked to them about it a few years back - was thinking about having my kidos do it, but the elder two immediately moved into Anchorage then landed great jobs so now they don't want to. I've got the youngest though, he'll be 18 in Jan and graduates HS in Dec [though he's staying the full year for college credits])

Still, I think for the lower 48 venture I'd have to do some other kind of business - too hard for me to judge the "need" for a delivery business in another town without living there I think. I'm looking for someone who wants to start a legit business of their own, making something or opening a store, something like that. Something more along the lines of I'm financing it, but it's their baby and they can buy me out of it after they've paid me back.

 

[hadit]

His dad died in prison for tax evasion. We need to raise the tax on the elites to get back to 70% for awhile, to pay off the debt, they got rich off the backs of the middle income, low income man, they can pay down the debt.

Do you have ANY idea how long that would take? Let's look at this logically.

1. There isn't enough income among the wealthy to close the Obama deficit even if they were taxed at 100%. That right there eliminates your pipe dream of paying off the debt by jacking up tax rates.

2. If that wasn't enough for you, let's look at what rich people do when you jack up their tax rates. That's right, their income disappears, gets moved around, reclassified and you don't get anywhere near what you thought you would get.

3. To add insult to injury, what do you think Congress would do with a bunch of new revenue? Do you think they would:

A. Keep spending where it is and use the new revenue to pay down the debt? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
B. Increase spending slightly on infrastructure needs that Obama neglected, cut spending on pet projects and narrow the Obama deficit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
C. Go nuts and increase spending even more than the new (projected, not real) revenue and widen the Obama deficit? Yeah, that one.

The 'Obama deficit" came from your 2 wars (one started with lies) that were put on the credit card and tax cuts that weren`t needed. You`re dismissed right out of the starting gate when you exposed your ignorance.
How the Deficit Got This Big

The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits

The Obama deficit has been around his entire regime. He did nothing to reduce it, so It's his.

Two wars that Bush started and tax cuts made the deficit and digging our way out of the second worst financial crisis this country has ever seen was the priority. We`ll see how Trump plans to pay your bills. The third chart down tells you all you don`t know.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits

Obama did nothing to reduce his deficit, so it's his.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I applaud this man for walking into a crowd of Fopdoodles and explaining economics.

Oh God, I got to 49 seconds in and he's blaming Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, but not Capitalism, as if Corporatism isn't Capitalism.

Corporatism isn't capitalism. Corporatism is corporate control over the state, and capitalism means zero state control over trade. First off, the state not controlling trade is not synonymous with the state being under the control of corporations. I know this concept can be hard to see through all the social justice fuzz in our popular culture, but everything in the world doesn't necessarily break down into an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. If I'm not in charge of you, that doesn't inherently mean that you are in charge of me.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, corporatism isn't capitalism because, in practice, corporatism tends to exclude capitalism. You have to do some intense mental gymnastics to convince yourself that, if an organization designed specifically to benefit the financial self-interests of its owners takes control of a state, the resulting economic system will be one of zero regulation and voluntary transactions. Beyond the mental gymnastics, if that's what you think of corporatism, you haven't been paying attention to the criticisms of corporatism. The entire problem with corporatist policies is that they fuck people over in order to afford unfair advantages to the corporation(s) in charge. Since you can't legislate advantages into existence where there are none, the only way for a government to afford advantages to a corporation is by enforcing regulations on competitors that they don't place on the corporation(s) who are in charge.

Simply put, capitalism is a lack of state regulation of trade, while corporatism's tendency is ever greater state control over trade. Not only are they not synonymous, they're not even compatible in practice.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Because Socialism IS to blame. It's like cancer, except people don't advocate forcing it on everyone~

Is it? Socialism in the US is to blame for everything, and capitalism isn't to blame for anything? Er...

That would be correct, yes. Everything positive has come from Capitalism, and everything negative has come from Socialism. It's that simple.

Oh god. It's funny how so many people think everything's simple. I mean, if it weren't simple, they'd not understand it, so they tell you it's simple, tell you they understand it and they're right, and yet.... it all goes wrong.

Of course it all goes wrong, it's the goal of Socialism. Socialists destroy everything that they get involved with, it's how life is.

And isn't it amazing that you say all this stuff, but never back it up.

The moon is square and made of cheese.

See how easy that is. Tell me it's not and I'll tell you how fucking stupid you. Don't I feel great for being right all the time?

Oh please, I don't expect much from you, but I at least expected you to know a teensy bit of history.

Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece. A list of Socialist Nations that have failed. Such a great track record.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I applaud this man for walking into a crowd of Fopdoodles and explaining economics.

Oh God, I got to 49 seconds in and he's blaming Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, but not Capitalism, as if Corporatism isn't Capitalism.

Corporatism isn't capitalism. Corporatism is corporate control over the state, and capitalism means zero state control over trade. First off, the state not controlling trade is not synonymous with the state being under the control of corporations. I know this concept can be hard to see through all the social justice fuzz in our popular culture, but everything in the world doesn't necessarily break down into an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. If I'm not in charge of you, that doesn't inherently mean that you are in charge of me.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, corporatism isn't capitalism because, in practice, corporatism tends to exclude capitalism. You have to do some intense mental gymnastics to convince yourself that, if an organization designed specifically to benefit the financial self-interests of its owners takes control of a state, the resulting economic system will be one of zero regulation and voluntary transactions. Beyond the mental gymnastics, if that's what you think of corporatism, you haven't been paying attention to the criticisms of corporatism. The entire problem with corporatist policies is that they fuck people over in order to afford unfair advantages to the corporation(s) in charge. Since you can't legislate advantages into existence where there are none, the only way for a government to afford advantages to a corporation is by enforcing regulations on competitors that they don't place on the corporation(s) who are in charge.

Simply put, capitalism is a lack of state regulation of trade, while corporatism's tendency is ever greater state control over trade. Not only are they not synonymous, they're not even compatible in practice.

The thing is that corporatism and capitalism often go hand in hand.

Do corporations control the state? Yes, especially under Bush's term when Halliburton was essentially running the White House. But the amount of money in the system shows you that money rules.

I understand what you're saying, however you have to realize that all I'm saying is that corporatism and capitalism are so similar that to criticize one and promote the other at the same time is showing a massive lack of understanding of the US.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it? Socialism in the US is to blame for everything, and capitalism isn't to blame for anything? Er...

That would be correct, yes. Everything positive has come from Capitalism, and everything negative has come from Socialism. It's that simple.

Oh god. It's funny how so many people think everything's simple. I mean, if it weren't simple, they'd not understand it, so they tell you it's simple, tell you they understand it and they're right, and yet.... it all goes wrong.

Of course it all goes wrong, it's the goal of Socialism. Socialists destroy everything that they get involved with, it's how life is.

And isn't it amazing that you say all this stuff, but never back it up.

The moon is square and made of cheese.

See how easy that is. Tell me it's not and I'll tell you how fucking stupid you. Don't I feel great for being right all the time?

Oh please, I don't expect much from you, but I at least expected you to know a teensy bit of history.

Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece. A list of Socialist Nations that have failed. Such a great track record.

I do know history. States fail all the time, Socialist or not. I'm no Socialist, however to suggest that many of these are actually Socialist, as opposed to a fake kind of Socialism shows a lack of understanding of Socialism.

North Korea isn't Socialist. Also, it hasn't failed. North Korea is a dictatorship which owns everything in the country as far as I can tell. Socialism is when "the people" own things, Kim Jong Fat Boy is not the people, the people don't own and control everything.

The same was said for the Warsaw Pact countries, for example.

North Vietnam didn't fail.

Somalia hasn't been Socialist. It has a Socialist Party run things, but it was Communist.

I think your copy and paste from a website you haven't quoted isn't going to get you very far.

 

[SYTFE]

His dad died in prison for tax evasion. We need to raise the tax on the elites to get back to 70% for awhile, to pay off the debt, they got rich off the backs of the middle income, low income man, they can pay down the debt.

Everybody pay 10%....across the board. Problem solved

Simple "solution" for a simple mind.

A flat tax SCREWS the lower and middle class, while the rich benefit greatly from a tiny 10% tax, freeing up even more disposable income for them to buy up more property, eventually pricing the middle class out completely.

THINK. Use your tiny brain for once. I promise you, it won't hurt (much.)

 

[SYTFE]

Of course the 1%er thinks capitalism works...its working exactly as its supposed to. Legalized Slavery. Pay the littlest of wage you can get away with and whine when people want better wages etc. Capitalism was invented to make the rich even richer and keeping the poor poor.

I have to say I'm totally amazed that you are getting capitalism on a level most conservatives can't even begin to process.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I do know history. States fail all the time, Socialist or not. I'm no Socialist, however to suggest that many of these are actually Socialist, as opposed to a fake kind of Socialism shows a lack of understanding of Socialism.

North Korea isn't Socialist. Also, it hasn't failed. North Korea is a dictatorship which owns everything in the country as far as I can tell. Socialism is when "the people" own things, Kim Jong Fat Boy is not the people, the people don't own and control everything.

Social ownership is a key component of Socialism, and Social ownership encompasses Government ownership. The fact that you don't know that disqualifies you from lecturing me. You're probably one of those Fopdoodles that thinks the Russians were Communist.

The same was said for the Warsaw Pact countries, for example.

North Vietnam didn't fail.

Somalia hasn't been Socialist. It has a Socialist Party run things, but it was Communist.

I think your copy and paste from a website you haven't quoted isn't going to get you very far.

Oh, you ARE one of those Fopdoodles that thinks the USSR were Communist. Allow me to educate you.

Communism is defined in the Communist Manifesto as a system where every citizen is equal. There's no currency, no government, and no Social classes, which is why it was named the way it was, meaning "Of or for the Community". Failed Socialist nations were referred to as "Communist" in an effort by Socialists to distance themselves from their obvious failures. You know, aside from their ideology in general.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I do know history. States fail all the time, Socialist or not. I'm no Socialist, however to suggest that many of these are actually Socialist, as opposed to a fake kind of Socialism shows a lack of understanding of Socialism.

North Korea isn't Socialist. Also, it hasn't failed. North Korea is a dictatorship which owns everything in the country as far as I can tell. Socialism is when "the people" own things, Kim Jong Fat Boy is not the people, the people don't own and control everything.

Social ownership is a key component of Socialism, and Social ownership encompasses Government ownership. The fact that you don't know that disqualifies you from lecturing me. You're probably one of those Fopdoodles that thinks the Russians were Communist.

The same was said for the Warsaw Pact countries, for example.

North Vietnam didn't fail.

Somalia hasn't been Socialist. It has a Socialist Party run things, but it was Communist.

I think your copy and paste from a website you haven't quoted isn't going to get you very far.

Oh, you ARE one of those Fopdoodles that thinks the USSR were Communist. Allow me to educate you.

Communism is defined in the Communist Manifesto as a system where every citizen is equal. There's no currency, no government, and no Social classes, which is why it was named the way it was, meaning "Of or for the Community". Failed Socialist nations were referred to as "Communist" in an effort by Socialists to distance themselves from their obvious failures. You know, aside from their ideology in general.

Yes it is. But what is "Social ownership"?

If you have a dictator in charge, and the dictator treats the country as his own personal fiefdom, and owns all the business, is this Socialism? No, it isn't.
Socialism is when "the people" own the production. How do "the people" own the production? Well they have to be the ones in charge. In the Warsaw Pact countries, they could do whatever they liked as long as the USSR agreed with it. That's not being in charge of your country.

You make the assumption that I don't know what Socialism is. You're wrong. I know what it is and I know the difference between Socialism and Fascism. Do you?

No, I don't think the Russians were Communists or Socialists. So your "education" isn't necessary. Seeing as you claim to be a 15 year old (which looks less and less likely every minute), how would you know what all this is?

 

[Picaro]

Ah , another hilarious thread about the 'isms', particularly the usual 'capitalism' spin. Capitalists love socialism, which is why they fell all over themselves praising Hitler, he roped in the evil unions in Germany, and they currently loves them some of that great Chinese Communism, for instance, and any other country run by some 'ism' gimmick. They always have, they love commies, fascists, islamists, etc., etc. In fact there isn't an ism' ever invented capitalists didn't like. But carry on with the ridiculous narratives, bullshit sophistry, and ideological fantasies, as some are pretty funny. They also loves them some of that U.S. Congress and the two 'Parties' they routinely bid on for favors and gimmes and subsidies, just like any laissez faire system should work. the fact is only the losers and those with less money try and peddle the lie the U.S. government is somehow interfering with the free market or something. Get over it, you're just being outbid and that's because you're incompetent and a failure. Quit scapegoating the government and own up to your own bad decisions, like good little Darwinists and libertarians should.

 

[Picaro]

His dad died in prison for tax evasion. We need to raise the tax on the elites to get back to 70% for awhile, to pay off the debt, they got rich off the backs of the middle income, low income man, they can pay down the debt.

Everybody pay 10%....across the board. Problem solved

Simple "solution" for a simple mind.

A flat tax SCREWS the lower and middle class, while the rich benefit greatly from a tiny 10% tax, freeing up even more disposable income for them to buy up more property, eventually pricing the middle class out completely.

THINK. Use your tiny brain for once. I promise you, it won't hurt (much.)

Well, those idiotic 'Fair Tax' Bills they keep dreaming up certainly are jokes, I think there have been 11 or 12 of them now. Idiots who have never read them all the way through think they're really grand, though. that's why the tack all the caveats and exemptions and special interest stuff at the very end, since they know not many will read past the title.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I applaud this man for walking into a crowd of Fopdoodles and explaining economics.

Oh God, I got to 49 seconds in and he's blaming Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, but not Capitalism, as if Corporatism isn't Capitalism.

Corporatism isn't capitalism. Corporatism is corporate control over the state, and capitalism means zero state control over trade. First off, the state not controlling trade is not synonymous with the state being under the control of corporations. I know this concept can be hard to see through all the social justice fuzz in our popular culture, but everything in the world doesn't necessarily break down into an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. If I'm not in charge of you, that doesn't inherently mean that you are in charge of me.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, corporatism isn't capitalism because, in practice, corporatism tends to exclude capitalism. You have to do some intense mental gymnastics to convince yourself that, if an organization designed specifically to benefit the financial self-interests of its owners takes control of a state, the resulting economic system will be one of zero regulation and voluntary transactions. Beyond the mental gymnastics, if that's what you think of corporatism, you haven't been paying attention to the criticisms of corporatism. The entire problem with corporatist policies is that they fuck people over in order to afford unfair advantages to the corporation(s) in charge. Since you can't legislate advantages into existence where there are none, the only way for a government to afford advantages to a corporation is by enforcing regulations on competitors that they don't place on the corporation(s) who are in charge.

Simply put, capitalism is a lack of state regulation of trade, while corporatism's tendency is ever greater state control over trade. Not only are they not synonymous, they're not even compatible in practice.

The thing is that corporatism and capitalism often go hand in hand.

Do corporations control the state? Yes, especially under Bush's term when Halliburton was essentially running the White House. But the amount of money in the system shows you that money rules.

I understand what you're saying, however you have to realize that all I'm saying is that corporatism and capitalism are so similar that to criticize one and promote the other at the same time is showing a massive lack of understanding of the US.

I don't know about hand in hand, but corporatism seems to be a pretty easy thing for capitalism to slide into, given the human tendency for self interested corruption. Unfortunately, every system has a high probability of becoming something terrible and authoritarian, because governments are designed and made up of human beings, and human beings often enjoy wealth and power more than they enjoy the fruits of integrity.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I applaud this man for walking into a crowd of Fopdoodles and explaining economics.

Oh God, I got to 49 seconds in and he's blaming Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, but not Capitalism, as if Corporatism isn't Capitalism.

Corporatism isn't capitalism. Corporatism is corporate control over the state, and capitalism means zero state control over trade. First off, the state not controlling trade is not synonymous with the state being under the control of corporations. I know this concept can be hard to see through all the social justice fuzz in our popular culture, but everything in the world doesn't necessarily break down into an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. If I'm not in charge of you, that doesn't inherently mean that you are in charge of me.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, corporatism isn't capitalism because, in practice, corporatism tends to exclude capitalism. You have to do some intense mental gymnastics to convince yourself that, if an organization designed specifically to benefit the financial self-interests of its owners takes control of a state, the resulting economic system will be one of zero regulation and voluntary transactions. Beyond the mental gymnastics, if that's what you think of corporatism, you haven't been paying attention to the criticisms of corporatism. The entire problem with corporatist policies is that they fuck people over in order to afford unfair advantages to the corporation(s) in charge. Since you can't legislate advantages into existence where there are none, the only way for a government to afford advantages to a corporation is by enforcing regulations on competitors that they don't place on the corporation(s) who are in charge.

Simply put, capitalism is a lack of state regulation of trade, while corporatism's tendency is ever greater state control over trade. Not only are they not synonymous, they're not even compatible in practice.

The thing is that corporatism and capitalism often go hand in hand.

Do corporations control the state? Yes, especially under Bush's term when Halliburton was essentially running the White House. But the amount of money in the system shows you that money rules.

I understand what you're saying, however you have to realize that all I'm saying is that corporatism and capitalism are so similar that to criticize one and promote the other at the same time is showing a massive lack of understanding of the US.

I don't know about hand in hand, but corporatism seems to be a pretty easy thing for capitalism to slide into, given the human tendency for self interested corruption. Unfortunately, every system has a high probability of becoming something terrible and authoritarian, because governments are designed and made up of human beings, and human beings often enjoy wealth and power more than they enjoy the fruits of integrity.

Sure, but make a system which doesn't become this is something achievable. Right now everyone is for status quo, a month ago they were talking change... go figure.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I applaud this man for walking into a crowd of Fopdoodles and explaining economics.

Oh God, I got to 49 seconds in and he's blaming Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, but not Capitalism, as if Corporatism isn't Capitalism.

Corporatism isn't capitalism. Corporatism is corporate control over the state, and capitalism means zero state control over trade. First off, the state not controlling trade is not synonymous with the state being under the control of corporations. I know this concept can be hard to see through all the social justice fuzz in our popular culture, but everything in the world doesn't necessarily break down into an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. If I'm not in charge of you, that doesn't inherently mean that you are in charge of me.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, corporatism isn't capitalism because, in practice, corporatism tends to exclude capitalism. You have to do some intense mental gymnastics to convince yourself that, if an organization designed specifically to benefit the financial self-interests of its owners takes control of a state, the resulting economic system will be one of zero regulation and voluntary transactions. Beyond the mental gymnastics, if that's what you think of corporatism, you haven't been paying attention to the criticisms of corporatism. The entire problem with corporatist policies is that they fuck people over in order to afford unfair advantages to the corporation(s) in charge. Since you can't legislate advantages into existence where there are none, the only way for a government to afford advantages to a corporation is by enforcing regulations on competitors that they don't place on the corporation(s) who are in charge.

Simply put, capitalism is a lack of state regulation of trade, while corporatism's tendency is ever greater state control over trade. Not only are they not synonymous, they're not even compatible in practice.

The thing is that corporatism and capitalism often go hand in hand.

Do corporations control the state? Yes, especially under Bush's term when Halliburton was essentially running the White House. But the amount of money in the system shows you that money rules.

I understand what you're saying, however you have to realize that all I'm saying is that corporatism and capitalism are so similar that to criticize one and promote the other at the same time is showing a massive lack of understanding of the US.

I don't know about hand in hand, but corporatism seems to be a pretty easy thing for capitalism to slide into, given the human tendency for self interested corruption. Unfortunately, every system has a high probability of becoming something terrible and authoritarian, because governments are designed and made up of human beings, and human beings often enjoy wealth and power more than they enjoy the fruits of integrity.

Sure, but make a system which doesn't become this is something achievable. Right now everyone is for status quo, a month ago they were talking change... go figure.

I'm not sure a system that's immune to corruption -is- achievable, unless some completely dispassionate, completely fair minded super-scientist builds us a disinterested artificial intelligence to rule us, and even then, countdown to the machine being hacked.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

His dad died in prison for tax evasion. We need to raise the tax on the elites to get back to 70% for awhile, to pay off the debt, they got rich off the backs of the middle income, low income man, they can pay down the debt.

Sure, that would be a great way to plummet the American economy and put millions out of work.