Capitalism is wealth, socialism is poverty.

ALibertarianInALeftWorld · Nov 5, 2013

I find it interesting how opponents of the free market love to cite the gilded age/industrial revolution as an example of the destructive capability of Capitalism.

As we all know, our grandparents growing up in the late 19th and early 20th century did not enjoy the luxurious technology that we have near unlimited access to on a daily basis. Everything was a chore. Hungry? Get a fire going and pick some vegetables from your garden. Want to be clean? Go pump water from a well, we didn't always have indoor plumbing. Work, school, or the store 4-5 miles from home? Crank up the Model-T, or start walking!

But have you ever heard grandpa complain? Sure, it definitely was very far from easy, but weren't those the "good ol' days?" Of course, you could say 6 year olds in factories isn't exactly humanitarian (and frankly, I'd agree), but in the world we currently inhabit, where children in bedrooms grow up to be adults in basements owning a college degree worth less than the ink and paper it's printed with, you have to ask, is this really our alternative?

Let's put it this way: Jobs are voluntary. Work isn't, but you can decide for yourself in what field you'd like to allocate your labor. Ultimately then, government intervention is the source of poverty. Government forces children to go to school. Am I wrong in assuming that most families nowadays do not possess the financial capabilities to afford private schooling? Their only option is government schools or to be dependent on government assistance. Since we've already covered how little degrees mean in our current times, these children are left with no prospect for a job. Furthermore, whether you agree with it or not, the minimum wage prevents businesses from hiring workers at the real value of their skills. In fact, this is what really makes employees so expendable!

See, instead of hiring multiple individuals to compete for positions and appropriate compensation for these services, firms must pay a minimum which is always above market equilibrium (our current situation proves this) for these menial positions, as in, the people these policies claim to protect are actually those who are most hurt by them.

So the next time somebody (a politician) advocates government as a means of protection against greedy businessmen, realize that all economic crisis are either started or accelerated by government intervention in the first place! And if you say that government is required to breakup monopolies, let me tell you that is another fallacy. If that's so, why do I only have one available power company, cable company, or phone company in my region?

The state is a monopoly. On what? Force.

mutmekep · Nov 5, 2013

Socialism is not what you think it is , hell not even capitalism is what you think it is.

The state is a monopoly. On what? Force.
Click to expand...

Ah nice you don't even know what the social contract is .

Durandal · Nov 5, 2013

Actually, the same greedy, power-hungry, conniving sorts will abuse any and every system, capitalism included, to freeload off of other people and live like kings at their expense.

Nevertheless, capitalism is a far superior system in principle than some disgusting top-down, corrupt socialist system built on lies and false promises. Capitalism is far more liberated, de-centralised and transparent, allowing people opportunities that they have nowhere else. This is what made America great, and its loss in favor of big government is certainly a big part of what is destroying it today. For one thing, people are far less self-reliant than they used to be here, meaning they have no idea what's really going on and are in no position to take care of themselves. We are also less free to act and live as we choose, having instead to participate in The System, made up of bureaucratic structures and institutionalising the population en masse.

Capitalism is another name for freedom.

banchie · Nov 5, 2013

Durandal said: ↑

Capitalism is another name for freedom.
Click to expand...

Hmm, capitalism is a toll road for the rich. ~ Socialism is a a road for everyone. ~ Which is Freedom?

Durandal · Nov 5, 2013

banchie said: ↑

Hmm, capitalism is a toll road for the rich. ~ Socialism is a a road for everyone. ~ Which is Freedom?
Click to expand...

Whether "the rich" are businessmen or politicians, we always have to pay the rich in order to be a part of society.

TheBlackPearl · Nov 5, 2013

Here. Learn something!

The Betrayal Of Adam Smith
From When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten
Kumarian Press and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995

Proponents of corporate libertarianism regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint. His writing remains to this day the intellectual foundation of policies advanced in the name of market freedom that are allowing a few hundred corporations to consolidate their control over markets all over the world. See An Economic System Dangerously Out of Control.

Ironically, Smith's epic work The Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, presents a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market pricea point many who invoke his name prefer not to mention. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic poweranother widely neglected point.

Indeed, Smith was almost fanatical in his opposition to any kind of monopoly power, which he defined as the power of a seller to maintain a price for an indefinite time above its natural price. Indeed, he asserted that trade secrets confer a monopoly advantage and are contrary to the principles of a free market. He would surely have strongly opposed current efforts by market libertarians to strengthen corporate monopoly control of intellectual property rights through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The idea that a major corporation might have exclusive control over a lifesaving drug or device and thereby be able to charge whatever the market will bear would have been anathema to him.

Furthermore, Smith did not advocate a market system based on unrestrained greed. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interestbut it is not greed. Greed is a high paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards.

Smith had a strong dislike for both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as instruments for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and for intervening in the market to protect monopoly. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Smith made no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interestto protect the poor against the rich. We can imagine that given the experience of his day the possibility never occurred to him.

The theory of market economics, as contrasted to free market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the violation of these conditions, the less efficient the market system. Most basic is the condition that markets must be competitive. I recall the professor in my elementary economics course using the example of a market comprised of small wheat farmers selling to small grain millers to illustrate the idea of perfect market competition. Today, four companiesConagra, ADM Milling, Cargill, and Pillsburymill nearly 60 percent of all flour produced in the United States, and two of themConagra and Cargillcontrol 50 percent of grain exports.

In the real world of unregulated markets, successful players get larger and in many instances use the resulting economic power to drive or buy out weaker players to gain control of ever larger shares of the market. In other instances "competitors" collude through cartels or strategic alliances to increase profits by setting market prices above the level of optimal efficiency. The larger individual and more collusive market players become, the more difficult it is for newcomers and small independent firms to survive, the more monopolistic and less competitive the market becomes, and the more political power the biggest firms wield behind demands for concessions from governments that allow them to externalize ever more of their costs to the community.

Given this reality, one might expect the economic rationalists to be outspoken in arguing for the need to restrict mergers and acquisitions and break up monopolistic firms to restore the conditions of a competitive market. More often they argue exactly the opposite positionthat to "compete" in today's global markets firms must merge into ever larger combinations. In other words, they espouse a theory that assumes small firms and advocate policies that strengthen monopoly.

Another basic condition of efficient market allocation is that the full costs of production must be born by the producer and be included in the producer's selling price. Economists call it cost internalization. This condition is so basic to market theory that it is rarely disputed even by the most doctrinaire of free market ideologues. If some portion of the cost of producing a product are borne by third parties who in no way participate in or benefit from the transaction, then economists say the costs have been externalized and the price of the product is distorted accordingly. Another way of putting it is that every externalized cost involves privatizing a gain and socializing its associated costs onto the community.

Externalized costs don't go awaythey are simply ignored by those who benefit from making the decisions that result in others incurring them. For example, when a forest products corporation obtains rights to clear-cut Forest Service land at give away prices and leaves behind a devastated habitat, the company reaps the immediate profit and the society bears the long term cost. When logging companies are contracted by the Mitsubishi Corporation to cut the forests of the Penan tribes people of Sarawak the corporation bears no cost for devastating native culture and ways of life.

Similarly, Dow Chemical externalizes production costs when it dumps wastes without adequate treatment, thus passing the resulting costs of air, water and soil pollution onto the community in the form of additional health costs, discomfort, lost working days, a need to buy bottled water, and the cost of cleaning up what has been contaminated. Walmart externalizes costs when it buys from Chinese contractors who pay their workers too little to maintain their basic physical and mental health or fail to maintain adequate worker safety standards and then dismiss without compensation those workers who are injured.

When the seller retains the benefit of the externalized cost, this represents an unearned profitan important source of market inefficiency. Passing the benefit to the buyer in the form of a lower price creates still another source of inefficiency by encouraging forms of consumption that use finite resources inefficiently. For example, the more the environmental and social costs of producing and driving an automobile are externalized, the more automobiles people buy and the more they drive them. Urban sprawl increases, more of our productive lands are paved over, more pollutants are released, petroleum reserves are depleted more rapidly, and voters favor highway construction over public transportation, sidewalks, and bicycle paths.

Yet rather than demanding that costs be fully internalized, the corporate libertarians are active advocates of eliminating government regulation, pointing to potential cost savings for consumers and ignoring the social and environmental consequences. Similarly they advise localities in need of employment that they must become more internationally competitive in attracting investors by offering them more favorable conditions, i.e., more opportunities to externalize their costs through various subsidies, low cost labor, lax environmental regulations, and tax breaks.

Market forces create substantial pressure on business to decrease costs and increase profits by increasing efficiency. The corporate rationalists fail to mention that one way firms increase their "efficiency" is to externalize more of their costs. The more powerful the firm, the greater its ability to take this course. As ecological economist Neva Goodwin has observed, "...power is largely what externalities are about. What's the point of having power, if you can't use it to externalize your coststo make them fall on someone else?" When corporate libertarians promote practices that allow corporations and wealthy investors to socialize their costs and privatize their gains, they reveal their fidelity to a political interest rather than to economic principles.

A third condition basic to the market theories of Adam Smith, but rarely noted by corporate libertariansis that capital is locally or nationally rooted and its owners are directly involved in its management. Adam Smith made quite explicit in The Wealth of Nations his assumption that capital would be rooted in place in the locality where its owner lived. He made it clear that this condition is critical to enabling the invisible hand of the market to translate the pursuit of self-interest into optimal public benefit. Indeed, the following is the only sentence in the entire text in he made reference to the invisible hand.

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security, and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

The circumstance that Adam Smith believed induced the individual to invest locally, was the inability to supervise his capital when employed far from his home. In the current age of instant communications by phone, fax, and computer, and twenty-four hour air travel to anywhere in the world that circumstance no longer endures. However, the advantage to the community and the larger society of productive investment being locally owned remains. Local investment is more likely to remain in place and is more easily held to local standards,

Smith was also quite explicit that optimal market efficiency depends on the owners of capital being directly involved in its managementthe owner managed enterprise. One could also argue that implicitly he favored worker owned enterprises, as in his ideal small firm owner, manager, and worker were one and the same person.

Thus Smith's vision of an efficient market was one comprised of small, owner-managed enterprises located in the communities in which the owners reside, share in the community's values, and have a personal stake in its future. It is a market that bears little in common with a globalized economy dominated by massive corporations without local or national allegiance managed by transient professionals who are removed from real owners by layers of investment institutions and holding companies.

Economist Neva Goodwin, who heads the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University suggests that the neoclassical school of economics, with which many of most vocal proponents of corporate libertarianism are identified, may be roughly characterized as the political economy of Adam Smith minus the political analysis of Karl Marx.

The classical political economy of Adam Smith was a much broader, more humane subject than the economics that is taught in universities today. . . . For at least a century it has been virtually taboo to talk about economic power in the capitalist context; that was a communist (Marxist) idea. The concept of class was similarly banned from discussion.

Adam Smith was as acutely aware of issues of power and class as he was of the dynamics of competitive markets. However, the neoclassical economists and the neomarxist economists bifurcated his holistic perspective on the political economy, one taking those portions of the analysis that favored the owners of property and the other those that favored those who sell their labor. Thus, the neoclassical economists left out Smith's considerations of the destructive role of power and class. And the neomarxists left out the beneficial functions of the market. Both advanced social experiments embodying a partial vision of society on a massive scale and with disastrous consequence.

In Praise of Competitive Markets
When the necessary conditions are met the market is a powerful and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources. What we now have is not a market economy. It is increasingly a command economy centrally planned and managed by the world's largest corporations to maximize financial returns to top managers and the wealthiest shareholders at the expense of the rest of society. If the corporate libertarians were to bear serious allegiance to market principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at achieving the conditions in which markets function in a democratic fashion in the public interest. They would be calling for measures to end subsidies and preferential treatment for large corporations, to break up corporate monopolies, encourage the distribution of property ownership, internalize social and environmental costs, root capital in place, secure the rights of workers to the just fruits of their labor, and limit opportunities to obtain extravagant individual incomes far greater than their productive contribution.

Corporate libertarianism is not about creating the market conditions that market theory argues will result in optimizing the public interest. It is not about the public interest at all. It is about defending and institutionalizing the right of the economically powerful to do best serves their immediate interests without public accountability for the consequences. It places power in institutions that are blind to issues of equity and environmental balance.
Click to expand...

ALibertarianInALeftWorld · Nov 5, 2013

TheBlackPearl said: ↑

Here. Learn something!
Click to expand...

Sorry to rain on your parade bud, but the phrase "corporate libertarianism" is an oxymoron. To base an argument off of such is defeating yourself. Corporations themselves are constructs of government. In fact, the reason why companies even have the ability to grow that large is because of lobbyists in the government structure that cut their taxes and give them subsidies. That definitely isn't free market. Monsanto and every defense contractor out there are only rich because of government. To claim that corporate greed is the result of Capitalism is so far wrong, only a man like Michael Moore could stoop that low. You are able to see the hole in the wall, but have no concept of how or why it's there.

You see, nobody likes massive corporations. The CEOs know this. So what do they do? They preach laissez-faire. Why? So the public will demand regulations. Then, the companies write up bills that will regulate in such a way that restricts new firms from entering the market. The bought and sold politicians pass it with so much support of the people, calling the foul play would be political suicide for any rep who wants to be re-elected. The perfect crime, and the corporations continue to charge whatever they wish. The problem is the state.

ALibertarianInALeftWorld · Nov 5, 2013

banchie said: ↑

Hmm, capitalism is a toll road for the rich. ~ Socialism is a a road for everyone. ~ Which is Freedom?
Click to expand...

Capitalism=a road in which those who utilize it are the only ones who pay for it. Socialism=Everybody is responsible regardless. Socialism=If you don't pay your dues to the state, we claim the right to kidnap you. If you resist, we claim the right to beat you. If you fight back, we claim the right to kill you. Yeah, real freedom there.

When the market wants you to buy a product, it works to make it better. When government wants you to buy something, they make it mandatory and throw you in a cage or kill you if you don't comply.

ALibertarianInALeftWorld · Nov 5, 2013

mutmekep said: ↑

Socialism is not what you think it is , hell not even capitalism is what you think it is.

Ah nice you don't even know what the social contract is .
Click to expand...

Honestly, out of all of the statist arguments I hear, "muh social contract" is the least heard, albeit most annoying. To say I am subject to the laws of a nation simply because I was born within its imaginary lines is entirely absurd. First, it implies I have a choice as to where I am born. Second, what is the difference between the "Social Contract" and the infamous "Divine Right of Kings"? Nothing. Government and its advocates are simply bullies using their superior numbers to exert legalized force on those of which that wish only to be free.

Besides, I didn't sign sh*t.

TheBlackPearl · Nov 5, 2013

ALibertarianInALeftWorld said: ↑

Sorry to rain on your parade bud, but the phrase "corporate libertarianism" is an oxymoron. To base an argument off of such is defeating yourself. Corporations themselves are constructs of government. In fact, the reason why companies even have the ability to grow that large is because of lobbyists in the government structure that cut their taxes and give them subsidies. That definitely isn't free market. Monsanto and every defense contractor out there are only rich because of government. To claim that corporate greed is the result of Capitalism is so far wrong, only a man like Michael Moore could stoop that low. You are able to see the hole in the wall, but have no concept of how or why it's there.

You see, nobody likes massive corporations. The CEOs know this. So what do they do? They preach laissez-faire. Why? So the public will demand regulations. Then, the companies write up bills that will regulate in such a way that restricts new firms from entering the market. The bought and sold politicians pass it with so much support of the people, calling the foul play would be political suicide for any rep who wants to be re-elected. The perfect crime, and the corporations continue to charge whatever they wish. The problem is the state.
Click to expand...

We're completely agreed on all that. The part I think you may be missing is that the age of capitalism is over and it isn't coming back any time soon. What we have in its place is corporatism or as Mussolini called it "fascism". Let's not make it any worse than it already is.

TheImmortal · Nov 5, 2013

Capitalism is the only viable long term economic system.

EyesWideOpen · Nov 5, 2013

banchie said: ↑

Hmm, capitalism is a toll road for the rich. ~ Socialism is a a road for everyone. ~ Which is Freedom?
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as you are not one of those unlucky enough to be caught in a next genocidal socialist purge, failed socialist experiment or thrown into prison for publicly speaking against the socialist government.

SMDBill · Nov 5, 2013

banchie said: ↑

Hmm, capitalism is a toll road for the rich. ~ Socialism is a a road for everyone. ~ Which is Freedom?
Click to expand...

Which socialist country would you have the US emulate if it were to become socialist?

Indofred · Nov 5, 2013

I see it this way:
Socialist sit in front of their capitalist supplied TV, drinking capitalist supplied beer on their capitalist supplied sofa but moan how capitalists have never done anything for them.
Socialism is a lovely ideal but, when it comes down to it, it's a load of old crap because people are not, and never will be, equal.
If all wealth was distributed evenly; one man would spend his money to open a brewery whilst many more would spend their's buying his beer and complaining about how they can't afford a nice car...just like the one the brewery owner has.

Socialism is a pathetic ideal; for the pathetic.

ALibertarianInALeftWorld · Nov 5, 2013

TheBlackPearl said: ↑

We're completely agreed on all that. The part I think you may be missing is that the age of capitalism is over and it isn't coming back any time soon. What we have in its place is corporatism or as Mussolini called it "fascism". Let's not make it any worse than it already is.
Click to expand...

I got you. My bad. Misunderstanding. I completely agree. Except the "age of capitalism" never really existed either, but yeah...

banchie · Nov 5, 2013

EyesWideOpen said: ↑

Sure, as long as you are not one of those unlucky enough to be caught in a next genocidal socialist purge, failed socialist experiment or thrown into prison for publicly speaking against the socialist government.
Click to expand...

Seems like you are talking about the current state of capitalism, as you throw the babies to food stamp curb, biggest prison nation, millions sitting idle and jobless, and biggest Debtor nation in the universe, totally subsevant to Communist loans, reduced to your knees, debt your great grandchildren will be paying.

I notice across the pond the Germans are humming along in productivity, National Health Care, No Wars murdering off their children, full wage retirements without a need for gimmick retirement plans sapping their paychecks, hi-tech 200+ Autobahns & Bullet trains whizzing around to quickly take them anywhere from work to vacations, mandatory 45 day vacations, twice as many paid holidays, safer work places, work programs, free education, free TV, a stable economy, one time property taxes (They actually own their property, Americans rent it), and income taxes close to our own, and the list goes on and on..................

Yeah, that socialism is a real killer!!! LMAO!!!

EyesWideOpen · Nov 5, 2013

Indofred said: ↑

I see it this way:
Socialist sit in front of their capitalist supplied TV, drinking capitalist supplied beer on their capitalist supplied sofa but moan how capitalists have never done anything for them.
Socialism is a lovely ideal but, when it comes down to it, it's a load of old crap because people are not, and never will be, equal.
If all wealth was distributed evenly; one man would spend his money to open a brewery whilst many more would spend their's buying his beer and complaining about how they can't afford a nice car...just like the one the brewery owner has.

Socialism is a pathetic ideal; for the pathetic.
Click to expand...

...and typing on their capitalist keyboard over the capitalist fiber optic network into capitalist web servers, viewing forum posts on their capitalist LED monitors.

Hoosier8 · Nov 5, 2013

banchie said: ↑

Hmm, capitalism is a toll road for the rich. ~ Socialism is a a road for everyone. ~ Which is Freedom?
Click to expand...

Socialism is the road to serfdom.

EyesWideOpen · Nov 5, 2013

banchie said: ↑

Seems like you are talking about the current state of capitalism, as you throw the babies to food stamp curb, biggest prison nation, millions sitting idle and jobless, and biggest Debtor nation in the universe, totally subsevant to Communist loans, reduced to your knees, debt your great grandchildren will be paying.

I notice across the pond the Germans are humming along in productivity, National Health Care, No Wars murdering off their children, full wage retirements without a need for gimmick retirement plans sapping their paychecks, hi-tech 200+ Autobahns & Bullet trains whizzing around to quickly take them anywhere from work to vacations, mandatory 45 day vacations, twice as many paid holidays, safer work places, work programs, free education, free TV, a stable economy, one time property taxes (They actually own their property, Americans rent it), and income taxes close to our own, and the list goes on and on..................

Yeah, that socialism is a real killer!!! LMAO!!!
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is not an argument, it's a refuge. Socialism can only exist for a short while on the backs of capitalism, until it runs out of other people's money, and the technology which was created by capitalists, becomes obsolete.

- - - Updated - - -

Hoosier8 said: ↑

Socialism is the road to serfdom.
Click to expand...

Can I have permission to quote you?

Armor For Sleep · Nov 5, 2013

EyesWideOpen said: ↑

...and typing on their capitalist keyboard over the capitalist fiber optic network into capitalist web servers, viewing forum posts on their capitalist LED monitors.
Click to expand...

Also, don't forget living on capitalist produced and provided land which absorbs roughly 1/5-1/4 of the G.D.P.

banchie · Nov 5, 2013

Indofred said: ↑

I see it this way:
Socialist sit in front of their capitalist supplied TV, drinking capitalist supplied beer on their capitalist supplied sofa but moan how capitalists have never done anything for them.
Socialism is a lovely ideal but, when it comes down to it, it's a load of old crap because people are not, and never will be, equal.
If all wealth was distributed evenly; one man would spend his money to open a brewery whilst many more would spend their's buying his beer and complaining about how they can't afford a nice car...just like the one the brewery owner has.

Socialism is a pathetic ideal; for the pathetic.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you skipped capitalism, $17 Trillion in debt, tv you bought and pay to watch, property you never own - only rent with your taxes, worst Health Care of any industrial nation and people dropping like flys, millions bankrupt, unemployed & can't buy that tv, pay to watch it, can't afford a car or a house, or a cell phone, or afford beer or meat, sitting on a fruit box under a bridge, dumpster diving for a meal, and completely unequal to the Crotch Bros. and top 90%. LMAO!!

danielpalos · Nov 5, 2013

Socialism brought us to the moon and back, last millennium; capitalism has yet to "earn" a profit motive.

banchie · Nov 5, 2013

EyesWideOpen said: ↑

Your ignorance is not an argument, it's a refuge. Socialism can only exist for a short while on the backs of capitalism, until it runs out of other people's money, and the technology which was created by capitalists, becomes obsolete.

- - - Updated - - -

Can I have permission to quote you?
Click to expand...

I guess you are asking to have your post jerked?? You refuted nothing and made a personal attack instead. Socialism has been around for thousands of years, maybe you should do some History 101 and get your head screwed back on your shoulders and detached from your butt!

Capitalism is fine until you run out of other peoples money, like the $17 Trillion and the trillions you borrowed from communists. LMAO!! Don't you know how embarrassed cons are for you here? You haven't got a pot to dribble in that isn't owned by someone else!!! Your part of the capitalist debt is $62,000.00 . Add your wife to that and your family debt is over 124,000.00 You planning on paying off your share anytime soon? LMAO!!

quote away

Sab · Nov 5, 2013

danielpalos said: ↑

Socialism brought us to the moon and back, last millennium; capitalism has yet to "earn" a profit motive.
Click to expand...

Daniel Palos is a troll. He won';t have any sort of discussion with you, he just posts nonsense to try and bait people.

Sab · Nov 5, 2013

banchie said: ↑

I guess you are asking to have your post jerked?? You refuted nothing and made a personal attack instead. Socialism has been around for thousands of years, maybe you should do some History 101 and get your head screwed back on yoru shoulders and detached from your butt!

Capitalism is fine until you run out of other peoples money, like the $17 Trillion and the trillions you borrowed from communists. LMAO!! Don't you know how embarrassed cons are for you here? You haven't got a pot to (*)(*)(*)(*) in that isn't owned by someone else!!! Your part of the capitalist debt is $62,000.00 . Add your wife to that and your famuily debt is over 124,000.00 You planning on paying off your share anytime soon? LMAO!!

quote away
Click to expand...

Socialism has been around for thousands of yeards? I realise you Americans have very very strange definitions of what socialism is but socialism MUST entail the means of production be in social rather than private hands in a society that promotes equality and a planned economy

Please tell me about this country of which you speak. That provably existed (rather than a theory)

The USA is not and never has been Socialist in any form whatsoever. Some cities have approached social democracy.

Log in or Sign up

Capitalism is wealth, socialism is poverty.

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

mutmekep New Member

Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

banchie New Member

Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

TheBlackPearl New Member

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

TheBlackPearl New Member

TheImmortal Well-Known Member

EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

SMDBill Well-Known Member

Indofred Banned at Members Request

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

banchie New Member

EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

Armor For Sleep New Member

banchie New Member

danielpalos Banned

banchie New Member

Sab Active Member

Sab Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Capitalism is wealth, socialism is poverty.

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

mutmekep New Member

Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

banchie New Member

Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

TheBlackPearl New Member

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

TheBlackPearl New Member

TheImmortal Well-Known Member

EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

SMDBill Well-Known Member

Indofred Banned at Members Request

ALibertarianInALeftWorld New Member

banchie New Member

EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

Armor For Sleep New Member

banchie New Member

danielpalos Banned

banchie New Member

Sab Active Member

Sab Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches