The New Appeal Of Communism

[bripat9643]

They did that because the federal government pressured banks into giving mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.

No blue Lining for these Jumbo mortgages.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Crosslands was not pressured to approve these mortgages.

Of course they were. Every bank was pressured to grant mortgages to borrowers with sub prime credit ratings. That's the only way they could meet their CRA mandate.

Nope...This was a specific act by Crosslands Savings Bank in various Black African neighborhoods.
And you keep ignoring the fact that the CRA mandate still had standards for Lending.
Standards that were violated willy nilly.
The other argument I love hearing from Conservatives is that Whites were invited along for the CRA ride...they weren't, but got approved also to raise Fees and Commissions.
Anyway, this is my last post on this topic in this Thread.

ROFL! It's hard to believe leftwingers are such dishonest douch bags. You can't expand lending to "underserved communities" and still maintain your standards for credit worthiness when the only reason they are "underserved is the fact that they have bad credit. The regulators knew banks could not maintain their standards for credit worthiness and grant mortgages to the so-called "red lined" neighborhoods, so they winked at these loans and looked the other way.

What was a "specific act," going bankrupt? You're an idiot.

 

[georgephillip]

You almost got it right. There is everything wrong with a government enforced monopoly. However, that's the only kind that ever occurs. And, yes, a monopoly occurs only if there is one company in an industry. That's what the word means. "mono" = "one, single"

Are you forgetting the fact there are no monopolies without corporations and there are no corporations without government?

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, we all know how the federal government persecuted Rockefeller and Standard Oil at the behest of his former competitors. Your automatic assumption that the government has a legitimate case only shows what a bootlicking toady you are. I'm sure you also believe Stalin was justified in send millions of innocent people . . er, I mean reactionaries and saboteurs to the Gulag.

The History of the Standard Oil Company - Chapter 16

"IT is quite possible that in keeping the attention fixed so long on Mr. Rockefeller's oil campaign the reader has forgotten the reason why it was undertaken.

"The reason was made clear enough at the start by Mr. Rockefeller himself.

"He and his colleagues went into their first venture, the South Improvement Company, not simply because it was a quick and effective way of putting everybody but themselves out of the refining business, but because, everybody but themselves being put out, they could control the output of oil and put up its price. 'There is no man in this country who would not quietly and calmly say that we ought to have a better price for these goods,' the secretary of the South Improvement Company told the Congressional Committee which examined him when it objected to a combination for raising prices."
Stalin could not have said it better.

 

[georgephillip]

the bottom line is that Standard Oil reduced the price of Kerosene to $0.05/gal and made it cheap enough for virtually everyone to afford.

Can you prove that claim?

 

[georgephillip]

Uh oh, now you did it. Unless they ignore you (highly doubtful) the cons will tell you that 1. Standard oil was never a monopoly and 2. There is nothing wrong with monopoly anyway. And 3.Monopoly only happens if only one company exists in an industry. And 4., actual monopolys are all created by government.
Always the same, if they come out to play, as you probably know. Comical.

Many of the cons appear ignorant, as I was until recently, of Aristotle's eternal political triangle:

"We are living today in a transition period much like that of Athens c. 330 BC when Aristotle wrote his Politics.

"Seeing inequality widen as his citystate became an empire, he described how wealthy families tend to emerge within democracies to become a financial oligarchy. Book V of Politics traces how these oligarchies indebt a rising proportion of the population to themselves, creating hereditary estates on which to found aristocratic dynasties.

"In time, rivalries develop within the leading aristocratic families, and some decide to overthrow other elites of the old order by “taking the multitude into their camp.'

"In the 7th century BC, populist tyrants gained power in Corinth and other wealthy Greek cities by canceling the debts, redistributing the land and driving the old ruling elites into exile. Democracy was introduced more peacefully by reformers in 6th-century Athens.

"Solon banned debt bondage in 594, and Kleisthenes locked in political democracy in 508.

"But an oligarchy emerged once again, to be followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on in Aristotle’s eternal political triangle."

http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf (p. 191)

 

[bripat9643]

You almost got it right. There is everything wrong with a government enforced monopoly. However, that's the only kind that ever occurs. And, yes, a monopoly occurs only if there is one company in an industry. That's what the word means. "mono" = "one, single"

Are you forgetting the fact there are no monopolies without corporations and there are no corporations without government?

How does that alter what I said?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, we all know how the federal government persecuted Rockefeller and Standard Oil at the behest of his former competitors. Your automatic assumption that the government has a legitimate case only shows what a bootlicking toady you are. I'm sure you also believe Stalin was justified in send millions of innocent people . . er, I mean reactionaries and saboteurs to the Gulag.

The History of the Standard Oil Company - Chapter 16

"IT is quite possible that in keeping the attention fixed so long on Mr. Rockefeller's oil campaign the reader has forgotten the reason why it was undertaken.

"The reason was made clear enough at the start by Mr. Rockefeller himself.

"He and his colleagues went into their first venture, the South Improvement Company, not simply because it was a quick and effective way of putting everybody but themselves out of the refining business, but because, everybody but themselves being put out, they could control the output of oil and put up its price. 'There is no man in this country who would not quietly and calmly say that we ought to have a better price for these goods,' the secretary of the South Improvement Company told the Congressional Committee which examined him when it objected to a combination for raising prices."
Stalin could not have said it better.

Stalin killed millions of people, douche bag. Who did Rockefeller kill? You have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly despicable to imagine Rockefeller is lower than Stalin.

 

[georgephillip]

You almost got it right. There is everything wrong with a government enforced monopoly. However, that's the only kind that ever occurs. And, yes, a monopoly occurs only if there is one company in an industry. That's what the word means. "mono" = "one, single"

Are you forgetting the fact there are no monopolies without corporations and there are no corporations without government?

How does that alter what I said?

You said "(t)here is everything wrong with a government enforced monopoly", and I pointed out corporations are a creature of government, in effect, without government neither corporations nor monopolies would not exist, so the problem is private greed not public regulations.

 

[bripat9643]

You almost got it right. There is everything wrong with a government enforced monopoly. However, that's the only kind that ever occurs. And, yes, a monopoly occurs only if there is one company in an industry. That's what the word means. "mono" = "one, single"

Are you forgetting the fact there are no monopolies without corporations and there are no corporations without government?

How does that alter what I said?

You said "(t)here is everything wrong with a government enforced monopoly", and I pointed out corporations are a creature of government, in effect, without government neither corporations nor monopolies would not exist, so the problem is private greed not public regulations.

Creating corporations does not equate to creating monopolies. Monopolies would also not exist if people didn't exist. Does that mean having children is the equivalent of creating monopolies?

Apparently this is what passes for logic with you.

The only time monopolies have ever existed is when the government makes competing with its favored constituent against the law.

 

[georgephillip]

Stalin killed millions of people, douche bag. Who did Rockefeller kill? You have to incredibly stupid or incredibly despicable to imagine Rockefeller is lower than Stalin.

Once again, you ignore economic externalities like the millions of people who have died from air and water pollution traceable to parasites like Rockefeller.
Standard Oil pollution | The Pop History Dig
"Burn On”
Randy Newman
1972"

"The Cuyahoga River had burned as early as 1868.

"One major fire in the river valley occurred at the Standard Oil refinery and other properties in early February 1883. A Cleveland Press account of the fire, which was reported while the blaze was still ongoing, blared the headline, 'Furious Flames!!'

"That report went on to note in sub-heads that a 'fast floating fire' set off 'the most terrific explosions' at the refinery, adding that 'tank after tank' and 'still after still” blew up.'"

 

[bripat9643]

Stalin killed millions of people, douche bag. Who did Rockefeller kill? You have to incredibly stupid or incredibly despicable to imagine Rockefeller is lower than Stalin.

Once again, you ignore economic externalities like the millions of people who have died from air and water pollution traceable to parasites like Rockefeller.
Standard Oil pollution | The Pop History Dig
"Burn On”
Randy Newman
1972"

"The Cuyahoga River had burned as early as 1868.

"One major fire in the river valley occurred at the Standard Oil refinery and other properties in early February 1883. A Cleveland Press account of the fire, which was reported while the blaze was still ongoing, blared the headline, 'Furious Flames!!'

"That report went on to note in sub-heads that a 'fast floating fire' set off 'the most terrific explosions' at the refinery, adding that 'tank after tank' and 'still after still” blew up.'"

So there was a fire at a Standard Oil owned refinery, and that makes Rockefeller worse than Stalin? Are you really expecting us to take this crap seriously? Fires happen at refineries all the time. That's why developers don't build housing next to them. There was also a fire in a place called Chernobyl.

You only make yourself look like a clown trying to equate John D. Rockefeller with Stalin. Abraham Lincoln would make a much better comparison. He at least has a body count in the same neighborhood as Stalin's.

 

[georgephillip]

So there was a fire at a Standard Oil owned refinery, and that makes Rockefeller worse than Stalin? Are you really expecting us to take this crap seriously? Fires happen at refineries all the time. That's why developers don't build housing next to them.

Rockefeller set a RIVER on FIRE.
When and where did Stalin manage to get rich from that crime?

 

[bripat9643]

So there was a fire at a Standard Oil owned refinery, and that makes Rockefeller worse than Stalin? Are you really expecting us to take this crap seriously? Fires happen at refineries all the time. That's why developers don't build housing next to them.

Rockefeller set a RIVER on FIRE.
When and where did Stalin manage to get rich from that crime?

He didn't set it on fire on, moron. That makes it sound like he did it deliberately. It was an industrial accident.

Again, trying to equate Rockefeller with Stalin only makes you look like a clown and a buffoon. Stalin was a mass murdering tyrant. Rockefeller brought cheap lighting to the entire world. That's the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism. Once destroys and the other creates.

 

[georgephillip]

Creating corporations does not equate to creating monopolies. Monopolies would also not exist if people didn't exist. Does that mean having children is the equivalent of creating monopolies?

Corporations would not exist without government.
Monopolies would not exist without corporations.
People existed for centuries without all three.

 

[bripat9643]

Creating corporations does not equate to creating monopolies. Monopolies would also not exist if people didn't exist. Does that mean having children is the equivalent of creating monopolies?

Corporations would not exist without government.
Monopolies would not exist without corporations.
People existed for centuries without all three.

That still doesn't prove your point.

You logic goes like this:

1. A table has four legs
2. A dog has four legs.
3. A table is a dog.

That's literally the same syllogism you're trying to put over on us with respect to monopolies.

You're a Stalinist buffoon who lacks the capacity to commit logic.

 

[Rshermr]

Creating corporations does not equate to creating monopolies. Monopolies would also not exist if people didn't exist. Does that mean having children is the equivalent of creating monopolies?

Corporations would not exist without government.
Monopolies would not exist without corporations.
People existed for centuries without all three.

That still doesn't prove your point.

You logic goes like this:

1. A table has four legs
2. A dog has four legs.
3. A table is a dog.

That's literally the same syllogism you're trying to put over on us with respect to monopolies.

You're a Stalinist buffoon who lacks the capacity to commit logic.

You mentioned in one of your posts that Rockefeller, the great person that you believe him to be, in your little con mind, kept kerosene prices down for years. And he did not, of course, instead raising it greatly like the monopolist he was.
"Moreover, the government showed that from 1895-1906 Standard's kerosene prices increased 46 percent, giving enormous profits to the monopoly."
www.crf-usa.org/.../bria-16-2-b-rockefeller-and...oil-monopoly.html
But then, that is what we should expect of a paid agenda driven tool like you,
Or consider your stupid post saying Rockefeller brought cheap lighting to the world. All Rockefeller did, me poor lying con tool, is sell kerosene to anyone who would buy it for exorbitant monopoly prices, me boy. He invented nothing, me lying tool. He is your hero only because he was a robber baron and you are an agenda driven tool paid to post lies.
Most people show contrition for lies. But not paid con tools like you. Dipshit. You are a sad organism.

 

[bripat9643]

Creating corporations does not equate to creating monopolies. Monopolies would also not exist if people didn't exist. Does that mean having children is the equivalent of creating monopolies?

Corporations would not exist without government.
Monopolies would not exist without corporations.
People existed for centuries without all three.

That still doesn't prove your point.

You logic goes like this:

1. A table has four legs
2. A dog has four legs.
3. A table is a dog.

That's literally the same syllogism you're trying to put over on us with respect to monopolies.

You're a Stalinist buffoon who lacks the capacity to commit logic.

You mentioned in one of your posts that Rockefeller, the great person that you believe him to be, in your little con mind, kept kerosene prices down for years. And he did not, of course, instead raising it greatly like the monopolist he was.
"Moreover, the government showed that from 1895-1906 Standard's kerosene prices increased 46 percent, giving enormous profits to the monopoly."
www.crf-usa.org/.../bria-16-2-b-rockefeller-and...oil-monopoly.html
But then, that is what we should expect of a paid agenda driven tool like you,
Or consider your stupid post saying Rockefeller brought cheap lighting to the world. All Rockefeller did, me poor lying con tool, is sell kerosene to anyone who would buy it for exorbitant monopoly prices, me boy. He invented nothing, me lying tool. He is your hero only because he was a robber baron and you are an agenda driven tool paid to post lies.
Most people show contrition for lies. But not paid con tools like you. Dipshit. You are a sad organism.

"Sorry, but the page you requested could not be found or has moved."

It appears your propaganda no longer exists.

Vindicating Standard Oil, 100 years later

Was it? In 1865, when Rockefeller’s market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. These data point to the real cause of Standard Oil’s success — its ability to charge the lowest prices by producing kerosene with unparalleled efficiency.

100 Years of Myths about Standard Oil

Standard Oil had no initial market power, with only about 4 percent of the market in 1870. Its output and market share grew as its superior efficiency dramatically lowered its refining costs (by 1897, they were less than one-tenth of their level in 1869), and it passed on the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices for refined oil (which fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897). ​

One of the main accusations against Standard Oil in the anti-Trust case of 1911 was that it engaged in "predatory pricing." That's a theory that a company charges a price LOWER than the market price to drive other companies out of business. How could Standard Oil be charging "monopoly prices" at the same time it's charging "predatory prices?"

 

[georgephillip]

Was it? In 1865, when Rockefeller’s market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. These data point to the real cause of Standard Oil’s success — its ability to charge the lowest prices by producing kerosene with unparalleled efficiency.

Your link doesn't have a source for these claims. It also doesn't mention any contributions from improving technologies or increasing supply and demand.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In theory, Communism died when the Berlin Wall fell, after Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. America took a sharp turn to the left in 2008 with the failures of the Bush administration leading many to question the free market as a viable engine of growth and prosperity. Even so, few would openly speak of, much less advocate for Communism as defined by Marx.

The seminal work of Marx is "Capital," which was published in two volumes, with a third cobbled together after his death. "Capital" is far more influential than the "Communist Manifesto" in terms of explaining the "why and how" of Communism.

But Marx published his work in 1867, under the title "Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie." What could this have to do with America, 150 years later? The answer is French Communist Thomas Piketty, who has adopted the same name for a modernized version of the Marxist screed. Piketty is not some fringe, but has occupied the #1 spot of the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks. Communism is extremely popular.

Given the history of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim, et al, how could people become enamored by Marxism? Promotion by the popular media and leftist culture, for one thing. Piketty has over 400 pages of statistics in his manifesto, I assure you that George Clooney and Cindy Crawford are not reading this, BUT it is an expected accoutrement at the elitist parties and events that Hollywood royalty attend.

What does the reemergence of Communism as high fashion mean for the world? We will all find out.

If Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim are the face of Communism, then Bernie Madoff is the face of Capitalism. Let's not confuse evil despots with an economic theory, or pretend that either lassiez faire capitalism or pure communism ever existed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I seek to stop ruling elites from amassing huge fortunes from revenue and profit-generating activities which add no value.

You seek to do this by giving them all assets, including the enslaved people. You think your masters will "care for you.'

When parasites like Morgan or Rockefeller create massive generational fortunes by indebting an economy to itself at an exponential rate, the resulting polarization of political power enslaves the majority of productive workers to a tiny oligarchy of parasitic scum and their useful idiots.

Rockefeller? Is it still 1902?

Try Soros and Tom Steyer, you know, your masters - the men you blindly and unquestioningly serve.