Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The poor in first world capitalist countries, yes, but even then, capitalism is starting to fail, it may have worked great at first, but the capitalist has ruined it. Profit driven private ownership of production is awful, work needs to be done based on what the people need, not the capitalists need. Yeah, show me this redistribution, the only way I can see capitalism continuing for some time is insane regulation, redistribution that is forced..No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etcIf you want toThe amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..
More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.
That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.
Yes, I can agree capitalism pulls people out of poverty at first and with intense regulation, but by nature, it cannot end poverty, and it cannot sustain itselfThe amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..
More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.
That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.
Of course it can.
And it has.
The foundation of the Western economy - which has lifted more people out of poverty in human history - is capitalism.
There will always be people who will be relatively poor, but the poor today live better than most people did a century ago.
The fundamental premise of capitalism is a profit-driven economy underpinned by the ownership of private property. A capitalist economy does not preclude that the gains of the economy all accrue to the property owner. Wealth creation can be redistributed. Sweden and the United States are both capitalist economies. The only difference is degree.
I think you are pretty ignorant about the histories of China and India.
India is impoverished because England looted the country for hundreds of years until they finally threw the bastards out. Today, it is one of the world's rising economic powers.
So, your claim is that India had less poverty under the Mughal dynasty than under Britain? You further claim that poverty DECREASED after Britain left?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What a fucktard you are.
You are living proof that leftism is based on ignorance combined with flat out stupidity.
The poor in first world capitalist countries, yes, but even then, capitalism is starting to fail, it may have worked great at first, but the capitalist has ruined it. Profit driven private ownership of production is awful, work needs to be done based on what the people need, not the capitalists need. Yeah, show me this redistribution, the only way I can see capitalism continuing for some time is insane regulation, redistribution that is forced..No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etcIf you want toMore people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.
That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.
Yes, I can agree capitalism pulls people out of poverty at first and with intense regulation, but by nature, it cannot end poverty, and it cannot sustain itselfMore people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.
That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.
Of course it can.
And it has.
The foundation of the Western economy - which has lifted more people out of poverty in human history - is capitalism.
There will always be people who will be relatively poor, but the poor today live better than most people did a century ago.
The fundamental premise of capitalism is a profit-driven economy underpinned by the ownership of private property. A capitalist economy does not preclude that the gains of the economy all accrue to the property owner. Wealth creation can be redistributed. Sweden and the United States are both capitalist economies. The only difference is degree.
[
200 million slaughtered? Literal bullshit. That's not even the accepted death toll, I always hear 100 million,
although that counts many ridiculous things that also happened under capitalist governments.
Oh, I've read marx and engels, and I will agree that the proletarians are prone to these influences, engels was wrong on this, but humans are always inherently going to have some of these tendencies, the system in place helps lean them towards certain ones.
Capitalism? Greed is prevalent. The pampered radical? Have you seen what they had to experience in their lives?
Yes, many intellectuals throughout history come from educated families and speak against systems that may benefit them, such as slavery, while using cotton products from the south, doesn't mean that intellectual supported slavery, same with capitalism. Perversion of economics theory? Marx laid down a wonderful way to examine history, examine capitalism, a beautiful critique, I never argued it wasn't marxist, I argued that it wasn't communism, as wrote about by Marx/engels. Mao wasn't a dictatorial thug, in my eyes, I admire Mao, although he made many mistakes. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a great idea, as getting to a communist society is not possible without the working class having political power. Performers of the least uneducated? You may need to reevaluate your understanding of how marxism has changed over time, with extensions by Lenin,mao..
I think you are pretty ignorant about the histories of China and India.
India is impoverished because England looted the country for hundreds of years until they finally threw the bastards out. Today, it is one of the world's rising economic powers.
So, your claim is that India had less poverty under the Mughal dynasty than under Britain? You further claim that poverty DECREASED after Britain left?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What a fucktard you are.
You are living proof that leftism is based on ignorance combined with flat out stupidity.
Joe makes shit up to score points on the Internet.
Yeah, you may want to see what capitalism did to europe in the 1800's, it's just moved the horrid parts to places like the third world and china now. Capital stock? Oh yeah, who did that benefit? The capitalists? The whole idea of money is ridiculous to me as a communist.. I do think the workers should control the government though. The resources aren't scarce, capitalists waste surplus all the time, and FAIL at distribution/thinking ahead.The poor in first world capitalist countries, yes, but even then, capitalism is starting to fail, it may have worked great at first, but the capitalist has ruined it. Profit driven private ownership of production is awful, work needs to be done based on what the people need, not the capitalists need. Yeah, show me this redistribution, the only way I can see capitalism continuing for some time is insane regulation, redistribution that is forced..No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etcIf you want to
Yes, I can agree capitalism pulls people out of poverty at first and with intense regulation, but by nature, it cannot end poverty, and it cannot sustain itself
Of course it can.
And it has.
The foundation of the Western economy - which has lifted more people out of poverty in human history - is capitalism.
There will always be people who will be relatively poor, but the poor today live better than most people did a century ago.
The fundamental premise of capitalism is a profit-driven economy underpinned by the ownership of private property. A capitalist economy does not preclude that the gains of the economy all accrue to the property owner. Wealth creation can be redistributed. Sweden and the United States are both capitalist economies. The only difference is degree.
History argues otherwise.
There's a reason why even leftist Western countries like France embarked on waves of privatization of government-owned industries in the 80s and 90s. It was because the government was running them into the ground. Most of these businesses earned less than their cost of capital. That, by definition, is wealth destruction. Governments couldn't keep these afloat. So they were sold, and most of them were run better and started adding to the capital stock rather than destroying.
Capitalism isn't perfect. It creates the most wealth for the most people most of the time. It doesn't create all the wealth for all the people all of the time. But it is the primary driver of wealth creation because it is a far better allocator of scarce resources than the government.
Why do i even bother responding to this bullshit... My response is the article regarding Maoism in my signature, it covers some glorious history.[
200 million slaughtered? Literal bullshit. That's not even the accepted death toll, I always hear 100 million,
So, you're a holocaust denier then?
although that counts many ridiculous things that also happened under capitalist governments.
Capitalism is an economic system.
The real danger to people is government. Communism advocates for absolute government, ergo the record of atrocities is higher than any other system. Government kills. More government means more deaths. Totalitarian government, as Communists advocate, kills without restraint.
Oh, I've read marx and engels, and I will agree that the proletarians are prone to these influences, engels was wrong on this, but humans are always inherently going to have some of these tendencies, the system in place helps lean them towards certain ones.
Friedrich Engels was the original campus radical,. Raised in opulent wealth, wanting for nothing, sent to the finest schools in the nation (Austria) and having never worked a day in his life, he naturally decided he was qualified to speak on behalf of the oppressed...
Such is leftism.
Capitalism? Greed is prevalent. The pampered radical? Have you seen what they had to experience in their lives?
Mumsy and daddy showering them with gifts and paying for every mistake made? The poor darlings..
Yes, I've known plenty of the entitled little fuckers.Those who have everything handed to them on a silver platter are leftists every time. Nothing makes one a capitalist quite like working for a pay check.
Leftism is predicated upon a failure to recognize value. One who never struggles to get something cannot learn to value anything. Those who strive to attain that which they value appreciate the concept.
I offer a trade, you demand a gift - this is the divide.
Yes, many intellectuals throughout history come from educated families and speak against systems that may benefit them, such as slavery, while using cotton products from the south, doesn't mean that intellectual supported slavery, same with capitalism. Perversion of economics theory? Marx laid down a wonderful way to examine history, examine capitalism, a beautiful critique, I never argued it wasn't marxist, I argued that it wasn't communism, as wrote about by Marx/engels. Mao wasn't a dictatorial thug, in my eyes, I admire Mao, although he made many mistakes. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a great idea, as getting to a communist society is not possible without the working class having political power. Performers of the least uneducated? You may need to reevaluate your understanding of how marxism has changed over time, with extensions by Lenin,mao..
Marx failed to even grasp what he critiqued. He looked at 19th century Prussia, with the remnant trappings of
feudalism, where the well connected were granted fifes in the form of industrial concerns, and declare "capitalism." He failed to grasp that what he observed with the crony corruption of the state controlling the means of production.
A Communist society can no more exist than can the enchanted forest, it is a fantasy sold the the foolish by the evil, so that fools will accept totalitarian dictatorship - which is the ONLY thing you peddle,
Yeah all that new technology is bad for the economy
It's been horrible for the economy, but the real problem is free trade. A bigger problem is that you have airlines making record profits while airline pilots are making $20,000 a year. That's fucking insane.
You got a link? You lie so much, no sane person would take you at your word.
My company is holding a massive hiring event and people simple aren't showing up....BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF GOOD PAYING JOBS TO CHOSE FROM.....THANKS TO DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA!!
Yeah, you may want to see what capitalism did to europe in the 1800's, it's just moved the horrid parts to places like the third world and china now. Capital stock? Oh yeah, who did that benefit? The capitalists? The whole idea of money is ridiculous to me as a communist.. I do think the workers should control the government though. The resources aren't scarce, capitalists waste surplus all the time, and FAIL at distribution/thinking ahead.The poor in first world capitalist countries, yes, but even then, capitalism is starting to fail, it may have worked great at first, but the capitalist has ruined it. Profit driven private ownership of production is awful, work needs to be done based on what the people need, not the capitalists need. Yeah, show me this redistribution, the only way I can see capitalism continuing for some time is insane regulation, redistribution that is forced..No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etcOf course it can.
And it has.
The foundation of the Western economy - which has lifted more people out of poverty in human history - is capitalism.
There will always be people who will be relatively poor, but the poor today live better than most people did a century ago.
The fundamental premise of capitalism is a profit-driven economy underpinned by the ownership of private property. A capitalist economy does not preclude that the gains of the economy all accrue to the property owner. Wealth creation can be redistributed. Sweden and the United States are both capitalist economies. The only difference is degree.
History argues otherwise.
There's a reason why even leftist Western countries like France embarked on waves of privatization of government-owned industries in the 80s and 90s. It was because the government was running them into the ground. Most of these businesses earned less than their cost of capital. That, by definition, is wealth destruction. Governments couldn't keep these afloat. So they were sold, and most of them were run better and started adding to the capital stock rather than destroying.
Capitalism isn't perfect. It creates the most wealth for the most people most of the time. It doesn't create all the wealth for all the people all of the time. But it is the primary driver of wealth creation because it is a far better allocator of scarce resources than the government.
Notice there tends to be an issue in liberal strong areas
-Geaux
==================
According to the latest supplemental survey from the New York Fed's manufacturing and business leaders surveys, employers in the New York area are facing two main problems: finding workers who can show up on time and workers who can hold a conversation.
The survey showed that in April, 65% of manufacturing employers had difficulty finding punctual workers and 60% had trouble finding workers with interpersonal skills.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ny-fe...-survey-2015-4
It did not, look at how it's changed and shifted to exploit others throughout history. Communism isn't a failure, it's never existed, and you're referring to these examples: THE USSR, an unindustrialized country that industrialized quickly and actually improved the standards of living compared to the pre USSR. Cuba, where the poor were suffering, and where the healthcare/literacy/education and needs were provided to Everyone better then before. North Korea isn't even considering themselves fucking communist, are you an idiot? Venezuela is doing better for its people then before Hugo, and I mean the poorer citizens. Try again.Yeah, you may want to see what capitalism did to europe in the 1800's, it's just moved the horrid parts to places like the third world and china now. Capital stock? Oh yeah, who did that benefit? The capitalists? The whole idea of money is ridiculous to me as a communist.. I do think the workers should control the government though. The resources aren't scarce, capitalists waste surplus all the time, and FAIL at distribution/thinking ahead.The poor in first world capitalist countries, yes, but even then, capitalism is starting to fail, it may have worked great at first, but the capitalist has ruined it. Profit driven private ownership of production is awful, work needs to be done based on what the people need, not the capitalists need. Yeah, show me this redistribution, the only way I can see capitalism continuing for some time is insane regulation, redistribution that is forced..No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etc
The foundation of the Western economy - which has lifted more people out of poverty in human history - is capitalism.
There will always be people who will be relatively poor, but the poor today live better than most people did a century ago.
The fundamental premise of capitalism is a profit-driven economy underpinned by the ownership of private property. A capitalist economy does not preclude that the gains of the economy all accrue to the property owner. Wealth creation can be redistributed. Sweden and the United States are both capitalist economies. The only difference is degree.
History argues otherwise.
There's a reason why even leftist Western countries like France embarked on waves of privatization of government-owned industries in the 80s and 90s. It was because the government was running them into the ground. Most of these businesses earned less than their cost of capital. That, by definition, is wealth destruction. Governments couldn't keep these afloat. So they were sold, and most of them were run better and started adding to the capital stock rather than destroying.
Capitalism isn't perfect. It creates the most wealth for the most people most of the time. It doesn't create all the wealth for all the people all of the time. But it is the primary driver of wealth creation because it is a far better allocator of scarce resources than the government.
No, it benefited most of the people.
That it seems ridiculous to you isn't relevant.
Communism is a failure. That's why countries are abandoning it and adopting capitalist principles. Cuba will soon. That only leaves North Korea. Venezuela is turning into a basket case.
Communists don't understand basic economics.
Collective ownership of production isn't that ridiculous..If the "workers" ran the company communally that would be utopian...
Lol
It did not, look at how it's changed and shifted to exploit others throughout history. Communism isn't a failure, it's never existed, and you're referring to these examples: THE USSR, an unindustrialized country that industrialized quickly and actually improved the standards of living compared to the pre USSR. Cuba, where the poor were suffering, and where the healthcare/literacy/education and needs were provided to Everyone better then before. North Korea isn't even considering themselves fucking communist, are you an idiot? Venezuela is doing better for its people then before Hugo, and I mean the poorer citizens. Try again.
No, literally, it hasn't existed, capitalism has, we actually have private ownership of production and trade, we haven't had a stateless, classless society. Keep ignoring the conditions of the poor In Cuba before Castro. Venezuela has had to struggle historically, Chavez took the oil profits and put them back into social programs, unlike the previous leader. The poverty in Venezuela declined, health rose, malnutrition decreased, literacy rose.. Fuck the economic bullshit, Hugo helped his people. Bare shelves aren't always a bad sign, and many got access to what they needed. Yeah, look at Cuba and what they're doing in their economyIt did not, look at how it's changed and shifted to exploit others throughout history. Communism isn't a failure, it's never existed, and you're referring to these examples: THE USSR, an unindustrialized country that industrialized quickly and actually improved the standards of living compared to the pre USSR. Cuba, where the poor were suffering, and where the healthcare/literacy/education and needs were provided to Everyone better then before. North Korea isn't even considering themselves fucking communist, are you an idiot? Venezuela is doing better for its people then before Hugo, and I mean the poorer citizens. Try again.
Saying that communism has never existed is like saying capitalism has never existed.
That, of course, is silly. What matters are the primary forces driving the socioeconomic organization. That neither pure communism nor capitalism unfolded as their theoretical adherents articulated is irrelevant. The fundamental tenets of communism and capitalism have been tried, and the world is choosing capitalism.
Cuba and Chile had roughly the same standards of living in 1960. Today, Chile is a vibrant, second-world country while Cuba is a barter economy that can't survive.
Venezuela has triple-digit inflation and bare shelves due to shortages as the incompetent Chavez and his lapdog run the economy into the ground.
Poor Bullie....you just blew him up.NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was envisioned at least 30 years ago to reduce trading costs, increase business investment, and help North America be more competitive in the global marketplace.I don't know what a "prog" is. I assume for you it's anything to the left of atilla the hun.
NAFTA was a rightwingnut thing that Clinton shouldn't have given in on.
"given in on"?No GOPer could have ever gotten that turd past a democrap Congress....your boy Willy lied and bribed his smelly ass off to get that passed.
What Is Its History?
The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act.
This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended since it's no longer neeeded. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)
Meanwhile, Mexican President Salinas and President Bush began negotiations for a liberalized trade between the two countries. Prior to NAFTA, Mexican tariffs on U.S. imports were 250% higher than U.S. tariffs on Mexican imports. In 1991, Canada requested a trilateral agreement, which then led to NAFTA. In 1993, concerns about liberalization of labor and environmental regulations led to the adoption of two addendums.
NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992.
It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later.
History and Purpose of NAFTA
Poor Bullie....you just blew him up.
Poor Bullie....you just blew him up.
NAFTA was a Clinturd/Gore show, butch...remember algore giving Ross Perot the elbow on Larry King to shut him up about the "giant sucking sound" of jobs going south and drugs and illegals heading norte? Even a drunk like you should recall that mess.
Poor Bullie....you just blew him up.
