The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

I don't need a Harvard degree or to read chapter 9 of any book to know if you steal the creations of man's mind, he is going to stop creating. As empirical evidence I offer you Venezuela and North Korea. Oh, party members clean up, but the creative mind, kiss it goodbye. For more enlightenment, I suggest the over 8 million copies seller, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand: "Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html

To not realize this is to confess a love of B.F Skinner and Marx, or the maturity of some of today's worst college students: the politically correct and the social justice warriors.

Yaron Brook: Socialism, give it a listen, if you have the courage and brains to understand the obvious. Your life, your choice.

 

You give the Republicans too much credit. We need a new party, even more radical than the Tea Party, we need a party that is going to be as radical as our founding fathers, we need a new Sons of Liberty Party. The Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin, collectivist tyranny, i.e., The Democrats want to rule your pocket book and the Republicans want to rule your bedroom--paraphrasing Ayn Rand--and I agree with her assessment.

 

I didn't claim that. Look what I said:

Today, the 'leftists' are against taxing the rich (by stopping to legalize the tax havens), they support artificial conflicts (e.g. with Russia) that consume a lot of taxpayers money (and that prevents implementing good public services), they adulate the super-rich, they support leeching (using welfare), they support massive looting (bailouts, Quantitative Easing), they vote for shameless "socialist" bloodsuckers who live from enslaving the poor (e.g. Tony Blair), they are against protecting the workers in their own country by using common sense and moderate protectionism, and they even help the slave owners who are exploiting their workers in Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, India etc, because "that creates jobs". If they are leftists then why they don't pressure those poor countries to make land reforms like Taiwan did in 1950? The leftists think that by helping the slave owners "to create jobs", they are advancing their "world communism" project.
This is not socialism, this is not communism but this is pure insanity. An insanity that is desperately encouraged by the mainstream media and by the corporate culture of the super-rich tax fraudsters and looters. When you talk with the American leftists, their only intelligible argument is "Yeah, but Trump is ridiculous.." Of course Trump is ridiculous, he was a clown since he started his TV show "The Apprentice" - but somehow the democrats could not see what any child can easily see and they adulated him. Now when he actually is trying to do something useful for the country, he suddenly became ridiculous - and that's the only argument the 'leftists' can bring up.

That was 10 days ago.

 

- That's why your country supported mass murders so many times all around the world, because it's so good?
- That's why the situation in the countries around USA is a living nightmare, because of the positive influence of USA?
- That's why your country supports dreadful dictators in the Middle East, because it's so good?
- That's why your country provides a safe heaven to all the drug lords, organized crime leaders and corrupt politicians from all over the world, because it's so good?
- That's why your country drags the people in the third world countries in deeper and deeper misery using IMF and WB?
- That's why your companies work the people to death in the third world countries because your capitalism is o wonderful?
- That's why your country is outsourcing the jobs in China, dragging it's own workers in misery?
- That's why your country is legalizing crime - tax havens and lobby?
- That's why your country is allowing speculation with the housing, education and sanitation until they get out of the reach for the workers?
- That's why your country is allowing the abuses against the immigrant workers?
- That's why your country creates artificial conflicts and spends the taxpayer money on unnecessary defense expenses?
- That's why the life of the workers in your country is so miserable comparing with the life of workers in the Scandinavian countries, because of the superiority of your country?

 

I was talking about the libcommies. They define themselves as leftists.

 

I'm not against international trade, because trade is very important. I'm against imbalance in trade, especially against trade deficit.
Make the trade as big as you want. But keep the trade deficit close to zero.
If you create 50 million jobs in the rest of the world by imports, then the rest of the world also has to create 50 million jobs in your country by buying the stuff you are exporting. Fair trade.
Otherwise you are exporting jobs to other countries.
I'm not for isolationism. I'm for fair international trade.

I'm all ears
I wouldn't miss it even for all the tea in China.

If the products are expensive, the workers can buy them once they have decent wages. You said that yourself in a previous post - want the link?
Now what, you start to contradict yourself?
The best proof is Switzerland - protectionism, expensive products but high wages => one of the highest living standards in the world.
This statement of yours is hilarious since the decades ago the Western countries were growing steadily while having very little international trade comparing with today. In many regards, the workers had a significantly bigger buying power than today.

That's absolutely OK as long as it's the result of increasing automation and as long as you have real competition and proper taxation. Then the government can pay all the unemployed and give them jobs (instead of giving them welfare or basic income).
- I was not attacking the reduction of jobs. By the contrary - as long as the above conditions are respected, that's exactly how the economy should evolve.
- I was attacking the trade deficit, which translates into exporting the jobs to China and other East Asian and third world countries. You can't tax the Chinese worker in order to pay your unemployed, isn't it?
Keep the jobs in your country so you can tax them. The net export of jobs to China means cheaper products for the rich and for the lucky workers who manage to keep their jobs. But those sent into unemployment will get a lower living standard because the govt. can't tax the Chinese in order to give proper welfare/basic income/jobs to the unemployed. Then you have to make a bigger public debt in order to pay the unemployed (China will lend you the extra money they make from the trade surplus they get from your naive calculations and decision). Those workers who keep their jobs will live in constant fear of losing their jobs and they will accept abuses much easier. The bigger the net export of jobs, the more catastrophic the economic situation of your country.

Let's not mix the two factors that reduce the jobs because the conversation will get into confusion.

That won't have when you have good protectionist measures in place

Ok, but as long as the production lines are in Mexico or in China, you can't tax it in order to pay a basic income?
Don't you think there is a clear link between this and the increasing public debt?
What happens if you have no job for an entire year and you live from making debt? Don't you think your debt will increase and then your living standard will deteriorate for a long while until you pay the debt? Say five years paying 20% of of your income (or ten years paying 10%) in order to pay the debt.

By, the way, do you know which country is the most protectionist in the world? Hint: subsidies, subventions, bailouts etc.

 

There's no homogeneity in left wing attitudes on trade. A market socialist, for example, will refer to the need to use free trade to solve the socialist calculation problem. Anarchists, in contrast, have built an understanding of globalisation around capital's reaction to labour bargaining success. A common feature though is the notion that, twinning globalisation and corporate power, there are 'race to the bottom' issues for labour and the environment.

 

- A party that will keep legalizing tax fraud (tax havens) and lobbying?
- A party that would allow any amount of speculation and anti-competition practices of the economic agents, driving the housing, education and sanitation out of the reach for the many?
- A party that would allow the companies to export as many jobs as possible to China and East Asia and sending the American workers into unemployment?
- A party that carefully grows the public debt in order to pay those workers sent into unemployment or to create inefficient jobs for them (by paying subventions for the rich who pretend to create jobs)?
- A party that allows the exploitation of the workers in your country in the name of the "sanctity" of the non-interference in the market?
- A party allowing the corporations to work the people to death in the third world countries so those workers will get a taste of your heroism?
- A party that supports providing safe heaven to all the drug lords, organized crime leaders and corrupt politicians from all over the world?
- A party that creates artificial conflicts and spends the taxpayer money on unnecessary defense expenses? (e.g. the conflict with Russia)
- A party supporting and financing the current impunity of the "scientific" community of the nutritionists who are doing their best to confuse the public, making bigger and bigger sales for the food processing and pharmaceutical industries, at the cost of the catastrophic health situation of the American public?
- A party that supports dragging the people in the third world countries in deeper and deeper misery using IMF and WB?

What better proof you want that Ayn Rand and her followers were nothing else than complete cretins than the fact that they are not and were not even capable to replicate the economic success of the various groups out there who are building functional egalitarian communities without education in economics or politics and without even using modern technology?

(Objective) Radical Cretins would be quite a fitting name for such a new party.

 

By "socialist calculation problem" you mean the problem of building a world communism?
How do you help the workers in Bangladesh when you help the capitalists who are working them to death? Why not to pressure Bangladesh to make a land reform like Taiwan in 1950s? They took the land from the rich and they gave it to the poor farm workers. The socialists can't do such a socialist reform when the capitalists can do it?
It's hard to image a more insane form of "leftism" than this

Yet the vast majority of the libcommies and the European "leftists" support this radical vision of increasing the net export of jobs to East Asia - as much as possible.
This is pure insanity and it has nothing to do with any socialism. Crushing the working class by removing their jobs and by dragging them in bigger misery by increasing the public debt is anti-socialism and it's the best job they can do for the super-rich.
Speaking about the super-rich, they love such elements so much that they refuse to tax them (by closing the legalized tax loopholes).

 

Now you are intentionally lying. I quoted what you said so don't substitute alternate wording! YOU SAID:

That was what I quoted. You said it, I quoted.

 

Can you name 2 or 3 of these "leftists" in the USA? You're not reflecting the views of the left at all. Like I said, you confuse the left and the right.

 

There is no such thing as a "libcommie", as you've been told a dozen times. BY DEFINITION a "liberal" is a centrist. A "commie" is an extreme leftist. Get a friggin clue!

 

Nope. I refer to the analysis into socialist replication of perfect competition (spawned, unusally, good comment from the Austrian School. See Hayek's output into distributed knowledge). That you don't know any of this only confirms that you're throwing out the 'leftist' tag without any notion of intellectual credibility.

 

of course if true the typical America hating libcommie would not be so afraid to present his best example.
Notice how easily the libcommie is defeated with 1% of the words he uses.

 

Why use the term libcommie when it makes you look naive over political economy? Is this a post-truth phenomenon?

 

100% utterly imbecilic. Republicans don't rule in Chi-Raq and look at the result!!

 

Liberals spied for Stalin when he was slowly starving 60 million to death and now through Sanders they are openly communists so libcommie seems about right. Do you understand?

 

I understand that you're not making any valid economic comment. To suggest a Liberal Democrat is a Communist is just silly. You won't find any credible comment linking the two as it is simply ludicrous.

 

our liberals spied for Stalin so the association is clear. Sanders a communist endorsed Hilary a libprogressive. this is 1+1=2

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened

 

Repeating the ridiculous charge won't impress me. I've tried to help: when making economic comment make sure your argument is based on credible economics. If you want to ignore that slice of obviousness that is up to you. However, anybody with any resemblance of economics education will instantly reject comments using silly vocab such as libcommie.

 

Most libcommies lack the IQ to know they are commies. When Obama took over govt was bigger than ever and guess what he wanted? When Sanders ran govt was far bigger than ever and guess what he wanted? Ever see a liberal who will tell you how big is big? Simple enough for even a liberal dupe to understand? Read "Useful Idiots" for completel list of liberals who spied for Stalin or took 5th when Joes asked them if they were libcommies. Do you know why a person takes the 5th?

 

Probably not a good idea to make reference to IQ when constructing comment based on naivety of political economy.

 

hilary is an open liberal and Sanders is an open communist. they endorsed each other within same party. Hate to rock your world! Alger Hiss was a liberal. Sorry!

 

Read "Useful Idiots" if you want a complete list of liberals who spied for Stalin while he was slowly starving 60 million to death.