POLL: Does the left want to end capitalism?

[Tehon]

My statement didn't need clarification. Socialism is a socioeconomic relationship. It is not a form of government.

Socialism requires an authoritarian state to enforce the division of labor and resources. Have you not read Marx?

Whether the "Dictatorship of the Proletarians" or the Kleptocracy of Merkle in Germany, Socialism is ALWAYS authoritarian, and must be so. Evolution drives a species to survive and thrive. Working to ones own harm for the supposed benefit of society violates our basic programming. Hence socialists ALWAYS use force.

Not only have I read Marx, but I have actively sought to understand what it was he was writing. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat needs be no more authoritarian than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that exists today in America and which you freely accept as being the natural state of things.


"The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.

Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic "freedom of assembly" is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants – the overwhelming majority of the population – are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, "equality", i.e., "pure democracy", is a fraud.

"Freedom of the press" is another of the principal slogans of "pure democracy". And here, too, the workers know – and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times – that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains – a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically – the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example...

The capitalists have always use the term "freedom" to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of "pure democracy" prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement."
First Congress of the Communist International

 

[kaz]

My statement didn't need clarification. Socialism is a socioeconomic relationship. It is not a form of government.

Socialism requires an authoritarian state to enforce the division of labor and resources. Have you not read Marx?

Whether the "Dictatorship of the Proletarians" or the Kleptocracy of Merkle in Germany, Socialism is ALWAYS authoritarian, and must be so. Evolution drives a species to survive and thrive. Working to ones own harm for the supposed benefit of society violates our basic programming. Hence socialists ALWAYS use force.

Not only have I read Marx, but I have actively sought to understand what it was he was writing. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat needs be no more authoritarian than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that exists today in America and which you freely accept as being the natural state of things.


"The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.

Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic "freedom of assembly" is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants – the overwhelming majority of the population – are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, "equality", i.e., "pure democracy", is a fraud.

"Freedom of the press" is another of the principal slogans of "pure democracy". And here, too, the workers know – and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times – that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains – a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically – the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example...

The capitalists have always use the term "freedom" to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of "pure democracy" prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement."
First Congress of the Communist International

Wow, you have read Marx, comrade.

You think that when people buy political power, that's capitalism. It's not, it's socialism. Government is making our choices, which is central economic planning, which is by definition socialism.

Capitalism is when government does NOT make our choices for us. Maybe when you're done studying Marx, you can start on Adam Smith and the other side

 

[Tehon]

It is not required that a centralized government plan the economy of a community. The centralized government rises out of the need to protect all of the communities from the capitalist invaders.

Capitalist invaders such as those having a yard sale or lemonaide stand.

The totalitarian government rises because men seek to trade in peace, offering value in exchange for value. This is the opposite of socialism, so the state is there to crush the natural goodness of people.

Trading in peace and offering value in exchange for value is the exact intent of socialism.

The capitalist seeks a profit, therefore he seeks an advantage over his trading partner. Capitalism is a system that relies on competition hence the phrase "buyer beware".

 

[Tehon]

My statement didn't need clarification. Socialism is a socioeconomic relationship. It is not a form of government.

Socialism requires an authoritarian state to enforce the division of labor and resources. Have you not read Marx?

Whether the "Dictatorship of the Proletarians" or the Kleptocracy of Merkle in Germany, Socialism is ALWAYS authoritarian, and must be so. Evolution drives a species to survive and thrive. Working to ones own harm for the supposed benefit of society violates our basic programming. Hence socialists ALWAYS use force.

Not only have I read Marx, but I have actively sought to understand what it was he was writing. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat needs be no more authoritarian than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that exists today in America and which you freely accept as being the natural state of things.


"The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.

Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic "freedom of assembly" is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants – the overwhelming majority of the population – are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, "equality", i.e., "pure democracy", is a fraud.

"Freedom of the press" is another of the principal slogans of "pure democracy". And here, too, the workers know – and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times – that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains – a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically – the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example...

The capitalists have always use the term "freedom" to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of "pure democracy" prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement."
First Congress of the Communist International

Wow, you have read Marx, comrade.

You think that when people buy political power, that's capitalism. It's not, it's socialism. Government is making our choices, which is central economic planning, which is by definition socialism.

Capitalism is when government does NOT make our choices for us. Maybe when you're done studying Marx, you can start on Adam Smith and the other side

You think that when people buy political power, that's capitalism.

No, that is not what is being said.

Our social development stems from the way in which we produce commodities. We produce commodities via the capitalist system. This gives capitalists great advantage over the development of society in all of its facets. This is the essence of what is being said.

To alter the way we produce commodities to a socialist method would also alter the way in which society developed.

The capitalist system provides us with a ruling class. The objective of the socialist system is to eliminate it.

 

[bripat9643]

It is not required that a centralized government plan the economy of a community. The centralized government rises out of the need to protect all of the communities from the capitalist invaders.

Capitalist invaders such as those having a yard sale or lemonaide stand.

The totalitarian government rises because men seek to trade in peace, offering value in exchange for value. This is the opposite of socialism, so the state is there to crush the natural goodness of people.

Trading in peace and offering value in exchange for value is the exact intent of socialism.

The capitalist seeks a profit, therefore he seeks an advantage over his trading partner. Capitalism is a system that relies on competition hence the phrase "buyer beware".

Wrong. Socialism doesn't allow trading. That requires the institution of private property, which socialism doesn't allow. "Profit" does not equate to "advantage." The lowest street vendor makes a profit.

Competition and "buyer beware" have no connection with each other. In fact, just the opposite. Competition is what drives firms to provide the best possible product they can deliver. "Buyer beware" should be the motto for democracy, since snake oil is normally what you are voting on.

 

[bripat9643]

My statement didn't need clarification. Socialism is a socioeconomic relationship. It is not a form of government.

Socialism requires an authoritarian state to enforce the division of labor and resources. Have you not read Marx?

Whether the "Dictatorship of the Proletarians" or the Kleptocracy of Merkle in Germany, Socialism is ALWAYS authoritarian, and must be so. Evolution drives a species to survive and thrive. Working to ones own harm for the supposed benefit of society violates our basic programming. Hence socialists ALWAYS use force.

Not only have I read Marx, but I have actively sought to understand what it was he was writing. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat needs be no more authoritarian than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that exists today in America and which you freely accept as being the natural state of things.


"The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.

Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic "freedom of assembly" is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants – the overwhelming majority of the population – are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, "equality", i.e., "pure democracy", is a fraud.

"Freedom of the press" is another of the principal slogans of "pure democracy". And here, too, the workers know – and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times – that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains – a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically – the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example...

The capitalists have always use the term "freedom" to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of "pure democracy" prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement."
First Congress of the Communist International

Wow, you have read Marx, comrade.

You think that when people buy political power, that's capitalism. It's not, it's socialism. Government is making our choices, which is central economic planning, which is by definition socialism.

Capitalism is when government does NOT make our choices for us. Maybe when you're done studying Marx, you can start on Adam Smith and the other side

You think that when people buy political power, that's capitalism.

No, that is not what is being said.

Our social development stems from the way in which we produce commodities. We produce commodities via the capitalist system. This gives capitalists great advantage over the development of society in all of its facets. This is the essence of what is being said.

To alter the way we produce commodities to a socialist method would also alter the way in which society developed.

The capitalist system provides us with a ruling class. The objective of the socialist system is to eliminate it.

The capitalist system provides us with wealth and technological miracles. The socialist system provides us with poverty, waste, squalor, starvation and dictatorship.

Can you name one socialist country that doesn't have a ruling class?

 

[kaz]

It is not required that a centralized government plan the economy of a community. The centralized government rises out of the need to protect all of the communities from the capitalist invaders.

Capitalist invaders such as those having a yard sale or lemonaide stand.

The totalitarian government rises because men seek to trade in peace, offering value in exchange for value. This is the opposite of socialism, so the state is there to crush the natural goodness of people.

Trading in peace and offering value in exchange for value is the exact intent of socialism.

The capitalist seeks a profit, therefore he seeks an advantage over his trading partner. Capitalism is a system that relies on competition hence the phrase "buyer beware".

More Marxist dogma. Making a profit is not taking advantage of anyone. And we aren't looking for an advantage over our customers. The best relationships are win-win, that's what capitalists seek.

The problem isn't that you didn't start reading Marx. It's that you didn't stop

 

[Mac1958]

Completely unchecked capitalism does not work for ordinary people. It eats itself and becomes destructive to the comfort of everyday people.

Yep. The screamingly obvious point of equilibrium here is effective and efficient regulation. But the libertarians controlling the GOP and the left wingers controlling the Dems have other ideas.
.

Libertarians are controlling the GOP? You're a complete idiot. There is nothing libertarian about the GOP

You "funny," Mac, but notice you have no examples of the GOP having any libertarian policies

I didn't say "policies", you did. That one came from your mind after extrapolating out what I actually said a few hundred miles. That's okay, I'm certainly used to that tactic here.

Right wingers are trained to run from any government spending, outside of the military, like cats running from a bath. That's the libertarian influence. Of course, in real life, the party spends like a 16 year old with her daddy's Gold Card, because they're pretty much full of shit. They say the right words during the campaign to get your vote, and then, ha ha.

As usual, if my opinion causes you some kind of trauma, too bad.
.

So you said the libertarians run the GOP, then you said they aren't really libertarian. Shows the stupidity that went into the original claim.

GOPers at best reduce the growth in government spending. They cut nothing. I would cut the government down to about a third the size it is now. Most of that would be military. As stated in the Constitution that was written by classic liberals, today called libertarians.

There is nothing remotely libertarian about either party.

And Republicans are failing to get my vote because ... they aren't libertarian ...

Basically you have here a big swish ...

From your perspective, you betcha.

Which has zero (0) relevance to me.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Tax Cut Economics is pure ignorance that benefits those with the most capital, the most.

I think in general the right wing is more ignorant than the left. This thread has shifted my perspective somewhat, though. It's closer than I thought.

What is the left correct about?

Completely unchecked capitalism does not work for ordinary people. It eats itself and becomes destructive to the comfort of everyday people.

Yep. The screamingly obvious point of equilibrium here is effective and efficient regulation. But the libertarians controlling the GOP and the left wingers controlling the Dems have other ideas.
.

Mac, you need to learn what terms mean before tossing them about.

{
What is 'Economic Equilibrium '
Economic equilibrium is a condition or state in which economic forces are balanced. In effect, economic variables remain unchanged from their equilibrium values in the absence of external influences.

Economic equilibrium may also be defined as the point at which supply equals demand for a product, with the equilibrium price existing where the hypothetical supply and demand curves intersect.}

Economic Equilibrium

Just because you hear a term doesn't mean you should use it with no understanding of it's meaning.

Um, I didn't use the term "Economic Equilibrium".

Maybe read my post one more time.

Then you can try again.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep. The screamingly obvious point of equilibrium here is effective and efficient regulation. But the libertarians controlling the GOP and the left wingers controlling the Dems have other ideas.
.

What a load of horse pucky.

I don't have time to correct this silliness, but I will when I have time later on.

You seem to be rather comfortable repeating this nonsense, too.

I'm surprised you're not more careful the way you keep poppin off about libertarians. Didn't you know that one of these days you just might run into a real one? And in front of all of your friends?

Okay, well, you're welcome to correct me at your convenience. I voted for Harry Browne before the LP got its teeth into the GOP, so I'm looking forward to it.
.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The capitalist system provides us with a ruling class. The objective of the socialist system is to eliminate it.

The objective of the socialist is to make the working class think you are going to eliminate the "unfairness".

 

[kaz]

My statement didn't need clarification. Socialism is a socioeconomic relationship. It is not a form of government.

Socialism requires an authoritarian state to enforce the division of labor and resources. Have you not read Marx?

Whether the "Dictatorship of the Proletarians" or the Kleptocracy of Merkle in Germany, Socialism is ALWAYS authoritarian, and must be so. Evolution drives a species to survive and thrive. Working to ones own harm for the supposed benefit of society violates our basic programming. Hence socialists ALWAYS use force.

Not only have I read Marx, but I have actively sought to understand what it was he was writing. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat needs be no more authoritarian than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that exists today in America and which you freely accept as being the natural state of things.


"The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.

Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic "freedom of assembly" is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants – the overwhelming majority of the population – are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, "equality", i.e., "pure democracy", is a fraud.

"Freedom of the press" is another of the principal slogans of "pure democracy". And here, too, the workers know – and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times – that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains – a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically – the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example...

The capitalists have always use the term "freedom" to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of "pure democracy" prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement."
First Congress of the Communist International

Wow, you have read Marx, comrade.

You think that when people buy political power, that's capitalism. It's not, it's socialism. Government is making our choices, which is central economic planning, which is by definition socialism.

Capitalism is when government does NOT make our choices for us. Maybe when you're done studying Marx, you can start on Adam Smith and the other side

You think that when people buy political power, that's capitalism.

No, that is not what is being said.

Our social development stems from the way in which we produce commodities. We produce commodities via the capitalist system. This gives capitalists great advantage over the development of society in all of its facets. This is the essence of what is being said.

To alter the way we produce commodities to a socialist method would also alter the way in which society developed.

The capitalist system provides us with a ruling class. The objective of the socialist system is to eliminate it.

Gotcha, Karl. The bourgeois is oppressing the proletariat.

Actually in capitalism, EVERYONE is free to make their own best choices. Employers, employees, producers, consumers, everyone

 

[kaz]

Yep. The screamingly obvious point of equilibrium here is effective and efficient regulation. But the libertarians controlling the GOP and the left wingers controlling the Dems have other ideas.
.

Libertarians are controlling the GOP? You're a complete idiot. There is nothing libertarian about the GOP

You "funny," Mac, but notice you have no examples of the GOP having any libertarian policies

I didn't say "policies", you did. That one came from your mind after extrapolating out what I actually said a few hundred miles. That's okay, I'm certainly used to that tactic here.

Right wingers are trained to run from any government spending, outside of the military, like cats running from a bath. That's the libertarian influence. Of course, in real life, the party spends like a 16 year old with her daddy's Gold Card, because they're pretty much full of shit. They say the right words during the campaign to get your vote, and then, ha ha.

As usual, if my opinion causes you some kind of trauma, too bad.
.

So you said the libertarians run the GOP, then you said they aren't really libertarian. Shows the stupidity that went into the original claim.

GOPers at best reduce the growth in government spending. They cut nothing. I would cut the government down to about a third the size it is now. Most of that would be military. As stated in the Constitution that was written by classic liberals, today called libertarians.

There is nothing remotely libertarian about either party.

And Republicans are failing to get my vote because ... they aren't libertarian ...

Basically you have here a big swish ...

From your perspective, you betcha.

Which has zero (0) relevance to me.
.

Your claim the libertarians control the GOP is of no relevance to anyone since it's a strawman

 

[P@triot]

The sad thing is many of the younger generation have no clue and just do the feel good follow along cause its hip. They snack on tide pods while dancing next to moving cars ffs

That’s only half true, GMU. Yes, the millennials (Y generation) are tide pod eating nitwits who have been duped into believing that communism is a utopia. But fascinatingly enough, Z generation is not only trending heavily right, they are trending hard right (libertarian). It’s unbelievable, but it’s true. I think the MaObama nightmare pushed them through Republicans, past constituitonal conservatism, and all the way to libertarianism.

 

[Mac1958]

Libertarians are controlling the GOP? You're a complete idiot. There is nothing libertarian about the GOP

You "funny," Mac, but notice you have no examples of the GOP having any libertarian policies

I didn't say "policies", you did. That one came from your mind after extrapolating out what I actually said a few hundred miles. That's okay, I'm certainly used to that tactic here.

Right wingers are trained to run from any government spending, outside of the military, like cats running from a bath. That's the libertarian influence. Of course, in real life, the party spends like a 16 year old with her daddy's Gold Card, because they're pretty much full of shit. They say the right words during the campaign to get your vote, and then, ha ha.

As usual, if my opinion causes you some kind of trauma, too bad.
.

So you said the libertarians run the GOP, then you said they aren't really libertarian. Shows the stupidity that went into the original claim.

GOPers at best reduce the growth in government spending. They cut nothing. I would cut the government down to about a third the size it is now. Most of that would be military. As stated in the Constitution that was written by classic liberals, today called libertarians.

There is nothing remotely libertarian about either party.

And Republicans are failing to get my vote because ... they aren't libertarian ...

Basically you have here a big swish ...

From your perspective, you betcha.

Which has zero (0) relevance to me.
.

Your claim the libertarians control the GOP is of no relevance to anyone since it's a strawman

Okie dokie!
.

 

[kaz]

I think in general the right wing is more ignorant than the left. This thread has shifted my perspective somewhat, though. It's closer than I thought.

What is the left correct about?

Completely unchecked capitalism does not work for ordinary people. It eats itself and becomes destructive to the comfort of everyday people.

Yep. The screamingly obvious point of equilibrium here is effective and efficient regulation. But the libertarians controlling the GOP and the left wingers controlling the Dems have other ideas.
.

Mac, you need to learn what terms mean before tossing them about.

{
What is 'Economic Equilibrium '
Economic equilibrium is a condition or state in which economic forces are balanced. In effect, economic variables remain unchanged from their equilibrium values in the absence of external influences.

Economic equilibrium may also be defined as the point at which supply equals demand for a product, with the equilibrium price existing where the hypothetical supply and demand curves intersect.}

Economic Equilibrium

Just because you hear a term doesn't mean you should use it with no understanding of it's meaning.

Um, I didn't use the term "Economic Equilibrium".

Maybe read my post one more time.

Then you can try again.
.

Obviously he took "equilibrium" as "economic equilibrium." Obviously you saw that. If that's not what you meant, why don't you clarify what you meant rather than being a dumb ass and saying duh, dar, you don't get it?

 

[P@triot]

The capitalist system provides us with a ruling class. The objective of the socialist system is to eliminate it.

That is astoundingly ignorant. That is the epitome of ignorant. First of all, capitalism does not create a “ruling class”. Everybody is completely free to do whatever the fuck they want - including starting their own business.

Secondly, socialism oppressed the people through an awful ruling class. It doesn’t seek to “eliminate” a ruling class. It seeks to control everything and everyone.

 

[Mac1958]

What is the left correct about?

Completely unchecked capitalism does not work for ordinary people. It eats itself and becomes destructive to the comfort of everyday people.

Yep. The screamingly obvious point of equilibrium here is effective and efficient regulation. But the libertarians controlling the GOP and the left wingers controlling the Dems have other ideas.
.

Mac, you need to learn what terms mean before tossing them about.

{
What is 'Economic Equilibrium '
Economic equilibrium is a condition or state in which economic forces are balanced. In effect, economic variables remain unchanged from their equilibrium values in the absence of external influences.

Economic equilibrium may also be defined as the point at which supply equals demand for a product, with the equilibrium price existing where the hypothetical supply and demand curves intersect.}

Economic Equilibrium

Just because you hear a term doesn't mean you should use it with no understanding of it's meaning.

Um, I didn't use the term "Economic Equilibrium".

Maybe read my post one more time.

Then you can try again.
.

Obviously he took "equilibrium" as "economic equilibrium." Obviously you saw that. If that's not what you meant, why don't you clarify what you meant rather than being a dumb ass and saying duh, dar, you don't get it?

You're stuffing my "alerts" inbox again. Get me out of your head.

He was obviously mistaken, or, he was being intellectually dishonest.

Since the latter is the primary method of discourse here, I'm comfy going with it.
.

 

[kaz]

Completely unchecked capitalism does not work for ordinary people. It eats itself and becomes destructive to the comfort of everyday people.

Yep. The screamingly obvious point of equilibrium here is effective and efficient regulation. But the libertarians controlling the GOP and the left wingers controlling the Dems have other ideas.
.

Mac, you need to learn what terms mean before tossing them about.

{
What is 'Economic Equilibrium '
Economic equilibrium is a condition or state in which economic forces are balanced. In effect, economic variables remain unchanged from their equilibrium values in the absence of external influences.

Economic equilibrium may also be defined as the point at which supply equals demand for a product, with the equilibrium price existing where the hypothetical supply and demand curves intersect.}

Economic Equilibrium

Just because you hear a term doesn't mean you should use it with no understanding of it's meaning.

Um, I didn't use the term "Economic Equilibrium".

Maybe read my post one more time.

Then you can try again.
.

Obviously he took "equilibrium" as "economic equilibrium." Obviously you saw that. If that's not what you meant, why don't you clarify what you meant rather than being a dumb ass and saying duh, dar, you don't get it?

You're stuffing my "alerts" inbox again. Get me out of your head.

He was obviously mistaken, or, he was being intellectually dishonest.

Since the latter is the primary method of discourse here, I'm comfy going with it.
.

He thought you meant economic equilibrium in an economic post where you used the term equilibrium. How intellectually dishonest, gotcha.

And wow, you write posts on a message board and get responses, you're a posting wizard ...

 

[Seawytch]

I'm a liberal that likes a healthy portion of socialism with my well regulated capitalism. That is the recipe that makes a vibrant middle class.