Capitalism: A Dish Best Served Cold

[thereisnospoon]

I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

You forget one important element. YOU do not get to decide the level of need. That is because it is none of your business.
And you have no examples with which to provide the board of the 'heinous crime' described above.
Do you really believe that if the board of directors of the XYZ company is going to continue the CEO's agreement if he or she is presiding over a poorly run company that is bleeding money?
At the end of the day, this is pointless.
You have your mind made up. You consider yourself a victim. Ypu've been the best worker a company could ever want, yet you cannot get ahead. You have been victimized time and time again. Yes..We get it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Guy, Capitalism and Communism have one thing in common.

They both look GREAT on paper.

And they are both a shit sandwich when real people apply them.

LMAO... Wow, well we're in deep trouble if there isn't a decent system because humans generally don't thrive well in anarchy.

You're right, both look good on paper, but we know that Communism fails because of human greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.... (another point I have made that you keep ignoring and not addressing.)

Um, guy, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation. The fall of the Soviet Empire is no more a "failure of communism" than the fall of the British Empire was the failure of Capitalism.

Yes, Communism sucked if you were a Pole or a Uzbek, and Capitalism sucked if you were an Indian or a Kenyan. Which is why those empires fell.

Here's the bonus question. Why do you pretend those two shit sandwiches are the only thing on the menu?

There should only be one thing on the menu and it should be the system which has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other. All other systems should be discarded in the trash bin of history. Especially Socialist, Marxist and Communist systems which tend to make people poorer and cause mass genocide when they fall apart.

I'm sorry you don't realize the fall of the Soviet Union was a failure of Communism. The British Empire was a totalitarian Monarchy, it has no place in this discussion of free market capitalism. No other nation has tried what we did here. About 250 years ago, we decided to set up a free market and free enterprise system under a constitutional republic. It was a bold move... at the time, it was considered a very liberal idea. Not only has it been successful, it has been successful beyond our wildest dreams.

If what you say is true, PLEASE provide the vast wealth of writings of our founding fathers on capitalism?

'The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.'
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

Jefferson was writing of unfettered greed perpetrated on the common people by the monarchy he left behind in England.
And without commerce we would be...?
Crickets anyone?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I had hoped this thread would at least spark a conversation.
Did I scare the Marxists by being too bluntly honest?

You are a dolt and not qualified to debate most of the liberals and moderates on USMB.

Hows that for blunt honesty?

Judge Haller: Mr. Gambini, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny: Thank you.
Judge Haller: Overruled.

 

[JoeB131]

[
it comes as no surprise a simplistic dismissive post would come from you.
You are one of these ne'er do wells who cannot wrap what's left of your brain the fact that there is a huge difference between profit and greed.
You insanely believe they are one in the same.
Fact is we are all capitalists. Yes, even you. You have a job. You trade your skills for compensation. Each party receives a benefit. That is capitalism.
Shut up.

No, guy, I see a difference between profit and greed.

Profit is a reasonable return on your investment of time, ingenuity or resources.

Greed is taking far more than you need or deserve, usually by cheating the people who use your services or the people who actually did the hard work.

And seeing that as destructive isn't "insane". It's actually kind of rational, as no good ever comes of greed at that level.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Imposing Capitalism? LMAO... How exactly do you do that? If you don't want to participate in capitalism, you don't have to. There is no imposition about it.

No, what they imposed was British rule under the King of England. A monarchy. Capitalism was the economic practices of the British at the exploitive expense of the people, not free market capitalism by any stretch of the imagination.

In 2008, the world economy began to melt down due to massive debt accumulated as the result of socialist entitlement programs that failed. Capitalist growth was no longer able to sustain the burden. The massive amounts of stimulus spending we did in the US was essentially worth a 1.6% increase in the GDP. The companies we bailed out that were "too big to fail" ...failed anyway. The housing market collapse was the result of socialist policy of providing low-interest loans to poor people who defaulted.

In one experiment after another, we see socialism fail and fail miserably. When the forces of free market capitalism are unleashed, millionaires and billionaires are made.

Guy, you are living in your own fantasy.

the economy did not collapse because poor people got housing vouchers.

It collapsed because Rich people sold mortgages and then lied about their value to sell them as investments.

And I guess you can make Capitalism look good, if you call all the bad examples like the British Empire something else.

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy at its very best.

So what is it like being safe and all snuggly in your own reality?

 

[thereisnospoon]

[
it comes as no surprise a simplistic dismissive post would come from you.
You are one of these ne'er do wells who cannot wrap what's left of your brain the fact that there is a huge difference between profit and greed.
You insanely believe they are one in the same.
Fact is we are all capitalists. Yes, even you. You have a job. You trade your skills for compensation. Each party receives a benefit. That is capitalism.
Shut up.

No, guy, I see a difference between profit and greed.

Profit is a reasonable return on your investment of time, ingenuity or resources.

Greed is taking far more than you need or deserve, usually by cheating the people who use your services or the people who actually did the hard work.

And seeing that as destructive isn't "insane". It's actually kind of rational, as no good ever comes of greed at that level.

Once again, who are you to decide how much or how little one needs?
The issue is capitalism. Which once again, you cannot separate from greed.

 

[JoeB131]

[
So what is it like being safe and all snuggly in your own reality?

Reality is what I described, and for most people I know who were just doing their jobs, and wound up with underwater mortgages, busted 401K's and reduced wages, it kind of sucked.

Because a few rich assholes on Wall Street found a loophole they could manipulate and a government unwilling to stop them.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Once again, who are you to decide how much or how little one needs?
The issue is capitalism. Which once again, you cannot separate from greed.

Uh, guy, in democracy, we DO get to decide.

The Europeans and Japanese have already figured this out. We had it figured out, after FDR when the very richest paid a 93% rate.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I notice how the dedicated socialists, who are totally poisoned by the Robinhood fairy tale that the democrats push in order to gain votes from the ignorant, and deny they are socialists, always show only the negative sides of capitalism and preach the mythical positives of socialism.

As they wipe their ass this morning with toilet paper produced and sold in evil grocery stores as they read this post on their evil computers through the evil internet.

Sigh, at the perpetual ignorant hypocrites, better known as marxists that we call liberals.

Okay, here's the thing.

We can get toilet paper without the Walton family being worth billions while their employees have to apply for food stamps.

Again, you guys want to socialize risk and capitalize benefits.

What a bunch of crap.

 

[JoeB131]

[
You forget one important element. YOU do not get to decide the level of need. That is because it is none of your business.
And you have no examples with which to provide the board of the 'heinous crime' described above.
Do you really believe that if the board of directors of the XYZ company is going to continue the CEO's agreement if he or she is presiding over a poorly run company that is bleeding money?
At the end of the day, this is pointless.
You have your mind made up. You consider yourself a victim. Ypu've been the best worker a company could ever want, yet you cannot get ahead. You have been victimized time and time again. Yes..We get it.

Uh, guy, I have given lots of examples of heinous profit taking.

The CEO of GM before the Bailout got a $14,000,000 salary before his company failed so badly the government had to take it over.

The CEO of Cigna (the company that told my company that folks like me who had lots of insurance claims had to go) paid its CEO NINE FIGURES to retire. They also cut the liver transplant operation for a 19 year old girl who died.

The problem with your logic is that the Board of Directors are the best judges of what is in the best interest of the company. Bear-Sterns, Enron, etc. all failed miserably with the boards of directors being oooooh, soooo fine with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Imposing Capitalism? LMAO... How exactly do you do that? If you don't want to participate in capitalism, you don't have to. There is no imposition about it.

No, what they imposed was British rule under the King of England. A monarchy. Capitalism was the economic practices of the British at the exploitive expense of the people, not free market capitalism by any stretch of the imagination.

In 2008, the world economy began to melt down due to massive debt accumulated as the result of socialist entitlement programs that failed. Capitalist growth was no longer able to sustain the burden. The massive amounts of stimulus spending we did in the US was essentially worth a 1.6% increase in the GDP. The companies we bailed out that were "too big to fail" ...failed anyway. The housing market collapse was the result of socialist policy of providing low-interest loans to poor people who defaulted.

In one experiment after another, we see socialism fail and fail miserably. When the forces of free market capitalism are unleashed, millionaires and billionaires are made.

Guy, you are living in your own fantasy.

the economy did not collapse because poor people got housing vouchers.

It collapsed because Rich people sold mortgages and then lied about their value to sell them as investments.

And I guess you can make Capitalism look good, if you call all the bad examples like the British Empire something else.

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy at its very best.

Vouchers? What vouchers? Present evidence of such.
No. These were loans. Loans which banks were forced to make by legislative fiat.
Banks were threatened by the federal government with being audited down to the last paper clip if they did not comply.
The federal government extended one olive branch. That was a promise to back up the loans with a guarantee that if there were defaults the banks need not worry about not getting repaid. Secondly, the government with the blessing of the SEC permitted mortgages to be bought and sold as investments which allowed the banks to turn a profit on what would be otherwise bad paper.

 

[JoeB131]

I notice how the dedicated socialists, who are totally poisoned by the Robinhood fairy tale that the democrats push in order to gain votes from the ignorant, and deny they are socialists, always show only the negative sides of capitalism and preach the mythical positives of socialism.

As they wipe their ass this morning with toilet paper produced and sold in evil grocery stores as they read this post on their evil computers through the evil internet.

Sigh, at the perpetual ignorant hypocrites, better known as marxists that we call liberals.

Okay, here's the thing.

We can get toilet paper without the Walton family being worth billions while their employees have to apply for food stamps.

Again, you guys want to socialize risk and capitalize benefits.

What a bunch of crap.

So now you are just floundering without an argument, then?

Here you go, guy, from FORBES, not exactly the Daily Worker, explaining my point.

Report Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers 6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes

Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

 

[skookerasbil]

Note that the far left nutters never have anything to say when the government wastes 1/2 billion $$ on a single solar company.......stuff like that always OK!!


Capitalism sucks.....socialism is far suckier.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you saying you are all for capitalism, except for all the ways Capitalism is ACTUALLY Practiced? Got it.

I don't think you've been reading with the intent to understand, but instead with the intent to reply and defend. That is shallow. The person with whom you've been debating has laid out a clear position, and you don't seem to get it.

Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism has raised the standard of living for ALL HUMANS on earth, unlike anything else, unlike all the alternatives.

No, I understand Boss perfectly. Boss is one of those fuckheads who listens to Hate Radio all day and think that some day, little Billy, if he worships greed enough and hates government, the Greed Fairy will flutter down and make him rich.

And I was like that for years. Until I got my fill of working for "Capitalists", who usually made things worse because of their shortsighted greed.

After 2008, Capitalism is done. Time for something better.

You do realize you are fighting a losing battle.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Vouchers? What vouchers? Present evidence of such.
No. These were loans. Loans which banks were forced to make by legislative fiat.
Banks were threatened by the federal government with being audited down to the last paper clip if they did not comply.
The federal government extended one olive branch. That was a promise to back up the loans with a guarantee that if there were defaults the banks need not worry about not getting repaid. Secondly, the government with the blessing of the SEC permitted mortgages to be bought and sold as investments which allowed the banks to turn a profit on what would be otherwise bad paper.

arguing against your angry ignorance is getting a bit tedious.

The CRA did not cause the meltdown. Even the BANKING INDUSTRY admits this.

Fannie Freddie and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.

Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.

Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

 

[JoeB131]

You do realize you are fighting a losing battle.

I'm pretty much beating you like a trailer trash wife on Superbowl Sunday.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[
So what is it like being safe and all snuggly in your own reality?

Reality is what I described, and for most people I know who were just doing their jobs, and wound up with underwater mortgages, busted 401K's and reduced wages, it kind of sucked.

Because a few rich assholes on Wall Street found a loophole they could manipulate and a government unwilling to stop them.

Stop screeching. Nobody cares to hear repetitive noise.

 

[JoeB131]

Stop screeching. Nobody cares to hear repetitive noise.

Your abject concession is duly noted.

Seriously, dude, you need to get better at this.

 

[Youch]

I notice how the dedicated socialists, who are totally poisoned by the Robinhood fairy tale that the democrats push in order to gain votes from the ignorant, and deny they are socialists, always show only the negative sides of capitalism and preach the mythical positives of socialism.

As they wipe their ass this morning with toilet paper produced and sold in evil grocery stores as they read this post on their evil computers through the evil internet.

Sigh, at the perpetual ignorant hypocrites, better known as marxists that we call liberals.

Okay, here's the thing.

We can get toilet paper without the Walton family being worth billions while their employees have to apply for food stamps.

Again, you guys want to socialize risk and capitalize benefits.

What a bunch of crap.

So now you are just floundering without an argument, then?

Here you go, guy, from FORBES, not exactly the Daily Worker, explaining my point.

Report Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers 6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes

Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

And how much does Walmart save the poor in this country by way of cheaper products?

And how much would those same people cost the taxpayer if they had no job?

And why all the public assistance? If you don't like public assistance, then perhaps help eliminate it.

Note that the far left nutters never have anything to say when the government wastes 1/2 billion $$ on a single solar company.......stuff like that always OK!!


Capitalism sucks.....socialism is far suckier.

I agree with your first point. But no, capitalism does not suck. Corruption and cronyism sucks, but not free enterprise.

The boobs who advocate for less than free enterprise are advocating for less freedom. Dangerous dolts, all of them!

Stop screeching. Nobody cares to hear repetitive noise.

Your abject concession is duly noted.

Seriously, dude, you need to get better at this.

I'm a lot better. Give me your best shot. You advocate a failed system. I advocate cleaning up the system that has raised the standard of living for all human beings. You advocate giving up liberty for a centralized state, which has failed everywhere and everytime.....I advocate the opposite. Bring it.....

 

[n0spam4me]

Part of the problem with "capitalizm" is the fact that in its present incarnation, its dependent on consumerism, and consumerism is NOT sustainable! there is NO way to provide the level of consumption presently enjoyed by all of us who just happen to use computers, drive our own cars, have nice neat 2,000 sq ft homes ( etc... ) to the entire world, it CAN'T happen! there isn't enough energy and raw material to go around.
Something is going to have to change about how resources are used on this planet.
Some people freak out about massive de-population schemes and so be it, but at some point, either by lowering the general standard of living, or by killing off mass numbers of people, its going to change. I can advocate for a specific sort of change, but really given the strangle hold on the media plugged in population that the PROPAGANDA MACHINE has, whatever the talking heads on TV decree .... there you are..... oh well