The great genius of capitalism

Are you saying that a cooperative society, is the same as a socialist society? Are you saying that a plutocratic and meritocratic society should be our pie in the sky? Should we just let the free market dictate all economic outcomes? Should we just let the banks, and large mortgage institutions fail? Should we just ignore those that will lose their only source of income, and sense of purpose? Should we just let large corporations monopolize smaller businesses, price-fix products, produce unsafe and unhealthy products, pay workers what they want not what they are worth, bribe and influence governments for favorable political decisions? Should we let all corporations decide how governments should conduct its free trade?

Corporations create fake narratives, artificial lifestyles, manufactured hopes and dreams, and the need to consume their product. You do not need to wear certain clothes, go to certain events, have the perfect smile, own that certain car and home, watch that certain movie and TV program, or to achieve that certain amount of worth and value. You simply need to have the basics for survival. Food, shelter, water, air, clothing, healthcare, relationships, family, and retirement/disability security. These things should all be free to all human beings. Capitalists will treat food, water, shelter, clothing, air(through our rates), our families and relationships, and our retirement/disability securities, as capital to exploit for profit. Thank God for those pie-in-the-sky-pipe-dreams, that our socialist government programs provide. I'm sure the majority of us, are very thankful for the free services for families and relationships, for free healthcare, for free food and shelter, free retirement/disability securities, and for the free protection of our air and water. Corporations and self-serving greedy capitalists, could have given back so much to the world that made them rich. But most choose to protect their wealth by any means possible. Including more endless regime-change wars. Clearly, capitalists are only interested in the survival of THEIR wealth, and not in the survival of all human beings.

You are trying to defend an imaginary system that would steal your mother's gold tooth, and sell it back to her for twice the price of gold. No one claims that Socialism good, and Capitalism bad. This is just another straw man to distract. All political and economic systems and theories, have both good and bad elements. Therefore, both, can be bad or good. "Welfare" and "Social" Capitalism can be good, when it is extended outside of the corporations(Kodak, Sears, IBM, etc.). Any utilitarian form of capitalism with a social purpose, is a good thing.

I have no idea what the relevance of "nativism" and "atavism" has to do with the context, visions, logic, and facts relating to the poster's comments. Maybe you can even point out something that the poster said, that is "plain ole bull dookey"? I didn't think so. Since Socialism has NEVER been practiced before, your 2/3 starving to death, and Socialism taking over the world, is just more corporate fabricated fear mongering BS. Just like the imaginary Communism taking over the world. It is ironic, that if we took less than a quarter of the incomes of the top 100 Billionaires, it would end all people living in extreme poverty($60 Billion). Do you see that ever happening? Capitalism is also a lovely sounding political/economic system as well. But even the most capitalistic zealot, knows how greed and power can affect the nature of any human being. Hence, the need for checks and balances, controls, and government regulations. History has more than provided examples, of the abuses that greed plays, in any supply and demand free market economy. Only the ignorant, or a fool, would think that only the market should be left to determine the price of all products, under any circumstances(natural disasters, market collapses, pandemics, wars and sanctions, etc.). The Government does not interfere in the free market system, until the safety, health, or an emergency event(Covid-19), forces it to. What do you think the price of toilet paper would be under this pandemic? Also, the very fact that 70% of the world's total population, is competing for less than 3% of the world's total wealth(30% own 97% of all wealth), is testament in itself. The wealthier can only get wealthier, and the poor can only get poorer, period. https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

You are correct. There is a sucker born every minute. But a sucker will eventually learn from his mistakes, when he is confronted with facts and logic. Unfortunately, fundamentalists pseudo-sophists, are simply being intellectually dishonest. No matter how much facts and logic is deposited, they will only cling to their false premise to save face, and to stay relevant. A premise that has no relevance to the argument in point. The argument is not about 2 absolutes(Capitalism and Socialism). It is about a version of Capitalism(free market and private ownership), and a version of Socialism(democratic, NOT MARXIST). But you are arguing a version of capitalism vs. true socialism. Why don't you manufacture fear with Fascism or Totalitarianism, with prices being determined by supply and demand? I'm sure that one of those born every minute, and the ignorant, would gladly support your straw man rationale.

I would urge that if the both of you are going to dismiss the entire contents of someone's post with ad homs, that you both would be courteous enough to supply the evidences to support your comments. There is no harm in learning from your mistakes. It is NOT personal.

 

The only apparent "genius" in "capitalism" is how it simplified creation of liquidity. Creation of wealth hasn't changed.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

 

Kinda, except what I said is a cooperative society as you described it does not and cannot exist. A society with a socialistic economic system can exist.

Not all but the vast majority of economic actions (nothing can dictate "outcomes") should be determined by the free market because for the most part it does it far and away best. Banks and financial institutions should follow prescribed rules of operation and then should probably be allowed to fail in most instances.

the answer is no to all but one of the questions. There should never be an unfettered economic system. It is quite simple to have basic laws and regulations, as we have, to outlaw price fixing, monopolizing, unsafe products (though not unhealthy products), and bribery and cronyism. Workers are paid what they are worth which is what the capitalist is willing, not wanting, to pay and what the worker is willing, not wanting, to receive. A government with supportive social programs is not socialism, what many here claim not withstanding.

Capitalists and corporations who do as you describe are quickly out of business. Unless a business makes something that the individual customer wants at a price she is willing to pay again and again, that business is soon gone. A capitalist cannot make a customer do or buy anything. That is the way capitalism works. That is not the way socialism works.
You talk of free family services, free healthcare, free food, free shelter, free clothing, free retirement/disability security, and free protection of air and water. I point out that nothing is free.

 

Atavism because the last time there wasn't a monetary system of some sort was the days of Ici the ice man about 5,000 years ago. Nativism because you are limited to very small tribal groups.
All societies are to some extent cooperative. Human beings are social animals, we are not however like bees, wasps, and ants.

Getting rid of money does not get rid of greed. As is amply demonstrated by dozens of prehistoric mass graves of murdered men women and children

 

When I think of a cooperative society, I don't think of a business or organization, where its members run, control, and share all its profits and benefits. I think of a society where the people work cooperatively with, their state, local, and their federal governments, to promote the general welfare, and to insure public tranquility. In a system where capitalism is a prime determinant of values, how can we preserve what we truly value as humans? Our humanity is more important than what is our consumer worth and our capitalist priorities. Our humanity should focus on our non-capitalist priorities(teaching, nurturing, parenting, creating art, music, and dance, building, loving and personal relationships, personal growth and character building, preventative healthcare, secular altruism, and preserving our environment for future generations).

What are the socialistic elements that apply to capitalism, and the free market system? What are your views concerning incentives and inherited wealth in the capitalist's model? I agree that in their truest forms, neither can, has, or will ever exist in reality. Neither can exist, because of man's greed, elitism, egoism, competitiveness, and his basic desire for power, control and fame. The only socialistic elements in Capitalism(economic system only), is how it can maximize its worker's labour to produce more profits. So, please explain how a socialistic economy CAN exist, and where? Without the socialistic elements, that are enabled by our constitution, there would be no emergency services, no free welfare and medical services, no regulatory and oversight services and agencies, no public libraries and museums, no military, and no government interference in the free market at all.
​

No one has said that a government providing any voluntary social services and benefits, IS Socialism(straw man). I think that most people would agree, that these programs do represent a form of Socialism(Welfare Socialism). Especially, when compared with the services offered in a capitalist system. Wages are part of any companies operating expenses. Therefore, in order to increase profits, they must keep their operating costs low. Right? Therefore, workers are NOT paid based on what they are worth. They are only paid what the capitalist think they are worth. Our economy is NOT a free market economy. https://money.howstuffworks.com/free-market-economy2.htm

History and science can clearly dictate the outcome it wants to achieve. I doubt if it would be in the public's best interest, to let the millions of workers in the top ten banks and retail corporations simply fail(regardless of whether they followed operating procedures). Since you are probably NOT a fan of breaking up monopolies, or large corporations, I suppose "too bad, so sad", might be your capitalist response. What do you say to those that believe that the whole structure of the government, is simply designed to keep the people out of governing? And, was never meant to allow the people to self-manage their own affairs.

Because of the Guarantee Clause in our Constitution, Socialism is incompatible with State and Federal Republicanism, our guaranteed right of private ownership, our popular sovereignty, and our natural and legal rights. The ideas of centralized control, decision making by politburo and collectives are failed ideas, scrapped along with monarchy, and dictatorships. Our Constitution doesn’t just aspire to ordinary people to rule themselves. But, is also a working blueprint of how to do it. Did you know that Socialism was mentioned in the original Constitution, before it was amended? Where do you find the word Capitalism ever mentioned?

"A socialist economic system shall be established with a view to ensuring the attainment of a just and egalitarian society, free from exploitation of man by man.".

I am not a Socialist, or a Capitalist. But I believe in the advantages of a mixed economy, where each play an important role. I do not have a knee-jerk fear and hatred reaction, to the word "socialism" out of ignorance. Nor, do I go all warm and fuzzy whenever I hear the word "capitalism" mentioned as well. Sorry, I must have missed the question that you said yes to. It is one thing to have laws and regulations to keep the marketplace fair, competitive, and accessible. But, it is another thing to enforce them, without the hue and cry about "big government" interference.

 

I found your arguments a bit circuitous, but I'll try to respond. This statement is the epitome of the difficulty: I have responded to many posters here who say precisely that. And a great deal of your arguments assume the same thing though you try to camouflage it. For instance:

You get out of claiming socialism by essentially describing no economic system at all. What you describe is a society that doesn't produce anything but one where I guess everyone just sits around the campfire eating nuts and berries and singing Kum Ba Yah. A cooperative society that doesn't have appointed leaders and managers, i.e. socialism, has virtually no production. Besides, capitalism does not prohibit any focus or interest on teaching, nurturing, parenting, creating art, music, and dance, building, loving and personal relationships, personal growth and character building, preventative healthcare, secular altruism, and preserving our environment for future generations. (Why does altruism have to be secular? Do you have some way to remove the natural drive for religion along with the natural drive of greed?)
​

My point. You are conflating social actions, institutions, and activities with socialism. "Socialistic" derives from "socialism" and means, by definition, advocating or following socialism, and socialism is an economic system with centralized government ownership and control of production and distribution. Emergency services, welfare, medical services, public libraries and museums, military are neither socialistic nor capitalistic; and by the way none are enabled (nor restricted) in the Constitution.

 

"You are conflating social actions, institutions, and activities with socialism...."
Agreed, and a point I have been trying to make as well.

 

Ignoring the stark reality that all first-world nations have achieved their relative success via a pragmatic integration of regulated capitalism and socialistic institutions, corporate behemoths gorging on the common man is quite the captivating humanitarian image that you contrive.

Trump is now exploiting capitalism as his scapegoat, foisting onto the private sector the mission for which he refuses to assume leadership:

In the spirit of manual hygiene, sing along with Pontius Trump!

"Wash your hands and say a prayer,
For Jesus and germs are everywhere!
You have to learn to do what you are told!
For germs may get you and you may die,
And Jesus will tell you the reason why -
Suck up to him before you get too old!"​

 

I tried diligently to get my post #281 into the right format, but learned there is a 15 minute time limit on editing posts.

 

And everywhere in Europe and in America's bluest states the reliance on government is making things worse not better.

 

Your ideological dogma does not appear to reflect reality.

The most advanced nations on earth have achieved their primacy via a pragmatic fusion of regulated capitalism with social welfare institutions. If you are in denial, please provide your alternative paradigm, a nation that has achieved comparable success via pure, unbridled capitalism.

It would appear that the prevailing political philosophy of states in the U.S. reflects a similar pattern:

10 RICHEST STATES IN USA

1. Maryland
2. New Jersey
3. Hawaii*
4. Massachusetts
5. Connecticut
6. New Hampshire
7. Alaska*
8. California
9. Virginia
10. Washington

(AK and HI, not being contiguous states, have a higher cost-of-living.)

... and the 10 POOREST STATES

1. Mississipp,
2..New Mexico
3. Louisiana
4. West Virginia
5. Alabama
6..Kentucky
7. South Carolina
8. Arkansas
9. Tennessee
10. North Carolina

Please cite empirical data rather than faith-based notions.

 

Louisiana's largest is a corrupt Democratic cess pool. Over the last hundred fifty years your ten poorest states were all run by Democrats for 120 of them and New Mexico still is. Of you 10 richest more than a third have been run by Republicans at least as frequently as Dems. There is little evidence that your stats are actually proof of anything.

 

If you cannot cite even one example of a purely capitalist nation as successful as the most advanced that all integrate regulated capitalism with socialism, and have no alternative studies that contest the posted ranking of the richest and poorest states with their ideological predispositions, then you don't.

Do cities, towns, neighborhoods, etc, differ considerably in the relative quality of life they achieve?

Of course.

 

Democracies do not capitulate to unbridled capitalism. Only a totalitarian regime would surrender to the dictates of a corporate elite.

 

Has far more to do with the individuals that have lived there than it does anything government has done. NYC was a cultural Mecca for more than a century before anyone ever heard of a progressive anything. Broad way was the theater district 150 years ago. People make the city the government doesn't.

 

I'm sorry, I still don't see the relevance of "nativism" and "atavism". Maybe you can quote something that the poster said, that could show relevancy?

Greed is an excessive, selfish desire to acquire and possess more of something than you need. It could be power, food, or wealth. I am curious, as to how you know that the people in these prehistoric mass graves, were murdered because of greed? And, not from some natural disaster, or war.

Regarding our herding instinct and hive mentality, maybe you can explain. As of the 23 March 2020, there have been 338,724 recorded cases of the Coronavirus worldwide. Out of these cases, 14,686 people have died(mostly from their already challenged immune system). This means that the disease has a 4.3% mortality rate. This also means the disease has a 95.7% survival rate. So, we are talking about 0.004% of the world population, that is infected by a disease, with a 95.7% survival rate. A disease that has allowed the hive mentality of 99.996% of the rest of the world, to allowed its leaders, to suspend their individual rights, and force them into quarantine and isolation. If the Queen Bee(leaders) says that this is to be so, then the drones simply do what they are told. Lets put this in its proper perspective. It is the same as quarantining, restricting, and isolating the entire population of San Francisco, because 35 people were infected(and 1.5 people died) with a flu-like illness with a 95.7% survival rate. In reality, it was 131 confirmed cases, with so far Zero deaths https://www.sfdph.org/dph/alerts/coronavirus.asp . This is a survival rate of 100% so far. Do we as rational thinkers even question the obvious overkill reaction? Or, are we so socially conditioned, that we simply believe and do as we are told? It is our herding instincts that enables this hive mentality. Although, with the extra funds our government will be paying me, I can now go buy a gun to save me from the mind-numbing boredom from the lack of human contact. What's next, martial law, curfews, imprisonments, rioting, and the military enforcement of government restrictions? It is amazing just how easily the mob can be manipulated by fear, money, dreams, or appeals to their ego. Facts are just irrelevant to the hive mentality. I can just see the anti-capitalist terrorist groups, having religious orgasms, while watching our economy implode by the same capitalist system we worship.

I have read your posts, and clearly you are not going to answer any of my questions(directly), or provide any evidence to support your opinions. You will continue to misrepresent my words, by ignoring context, and arguing semantics. Adding the suffix "ic" to the end of a word, does NOT define the suffix as its root word(is a poetic statement , a poem?). It simply means "like" or "pertaining to". AND, YOU KNOW IT. So let me use bullet form, to avoid any more misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty.

---There is NO PRACTICING SOCIALIST ECONOMIES, NO CAPITALIST ECONOMIES, NO FREE MARKET ECONOMIES, NO DEMOCRATIC, NO REPUBLIC, NO TOTALITARIAN, or any AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD. There are only MIXED ECONOMIES, and MIXED FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS. Unless you can provide evidence that there are.

---Are the government services, agencies, and programs I mentioned, STATE or FEDERALLY OWNED and controlled? Or, are they PRIVATELY OWNED? Do these programs provide for the greater social good, and is available to all the members of society? Or, for only those who can afford them? Do these programs ensure that everyone has both equal opportunities for equal outcomes? Or, do they only encourage innovation and economic development(capitalism)? Are these programs profit or market-driven? Or, are they the product of the abuses of unfettered capitalism? Are these programs funded by the taxes collected from all earners? Or, are they collected from the profits earned? Do these programs compete with each other, in providing unemployment and retirement benefits, and public spending on infrastructure, healthcare and education?

No matter how many times you(and others) choose to feign self-induced denial, all of these government programs are driven by the economic inequalities, created by the abuses of a capitalist free market system. Without some form of restrictions, regulations, or intervention, human greed, and the irrational need to hoard more capital than you need, will only spread. As in nature, the law of natural compensations, also apply to economic systems. The more capital that is created, the more capital is lost at the bottom end. The more people who become rich, the more people who will become poor. It will also keep the top 1% in having more wealth, than the bottom 50% combined. You just don't get it do you?

Our Supreme Court rulings were caused by HUMANS abusing other humans civil liberties. Our government regulations and restrictions, were caused by CORPORATE abuses and their ILLEGAL practices. Now corporations are trying to change the regulations, restrictions, by directly influencing those that make the rules and regulations. These special lobbyist groups, have only one goal. To change policies and restrictions in favor of their corporate clients. That is it. The normal individual just doesn't have that amount of political clout.

---If history cannot dictate outcomes, then we are doomed to keep making the same mistakes that history has clearly shown us. Our current foreign policy is a perfect example of history dictating policy outcomes. We use the same covert operations, sanctions, and demonizing practices, to try and change governments that are not favorable to our policies and interests. The results are always the same. Name just ONE country since WWII, whose economies, and the lives of its people, have been vastly improved, by American intervention? Just one will do. So, unless you want to have a different outcome from history, then simply ignore it.

--- Regarding the peoples ability to govern their own affairs, what role do you play in our military decisions, in our foreign policy decisions, in the amounts of our disability and retirement benefits, in our Veteran's Affairs decisions, in our government spending decisions, in our housing and unemployment decisions, or even in our NOMINATIONS AND ELECTION decisions? Very little, I'm afraid. These decisions are made for you. And, you are convinced later after the fact, with mostly lies and half-truths. There is also an argument, that we are made to feel that we really matter, in deciding how we are governed. We are conditioned to do and believe whatever we are told. This latest pandemic is a perfect example.

---I just told you that the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, is the antithesis of Socialism, and legally prevents our government from adopting its core principles. So, why would you just say that I was describing Socialism? In what way can the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, be described as Socialism?

---The society that I envision, is also an attainable society. It is a society with its checks and balances, to protect all man from the weaknesses of other man. A society where the government's principle concerns, are to promote the general welfare, and to ensure domestic tranquility. A society that agrees, that capitalism can only exist in a society that allows for its existence. Abuses will not be tolerated.

---True altruism comes from the heart, with the personal selflessness to promote the wellbeing of others. Therefore, it is secular, because its services focus on the physical and mental wellbeing of others. Religious motives seems to be focused on the spiritual wellbeing, control, and the religious conversion of others.

---I doubt if anyone on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, does not question his overall worth. Especially, if he is being bombarded by up to 10,000 ads a day, spewing out exaggerated product claims, fallacious arguments, and emotional appeals.

With all due respect, I appreciate hearing your opinions. But since you are NOT depositing any factual support for your claims, or support for the facts you do claim, your opinion is only worth the support you deposit. I cannot question the facts that support your opinions, if they are not presented. It would be more honest to simply say that Capitalism good, and Socialism bad. And, repeat.
​

 

I think I cite facts and reality but I am arguing with an amorphous bowl of Jell-O. I am arguing for the genius of capitalism. You are obviously on the other side and assert socialism is better. But then you say there is no such thing as capitalism or socialism (nor democracy or totalitarianism, et al for that matter). Then you define socialism any way you desire. This is not a semantics difficulty, it is a definitional problem. You can define "socialistic" any way you want, but if that differs from the common universal definition discourse is impossible. I say socialism is bad; then you challenge what do I have against red wagons. An exaggeration to be sure but it makes my point.

One rebuttal: Person A getting richer does not mean that person B has to get poorer. In fact under capitalism the opposite is true.

One comment: the economies and the lives of the entire continent of Europe and surrounding areas were made better by American intervention after WWII, for example.

 

Really?

I asked you to name any country since WWII, whose government and economy was greatly improved, as a direct result of American intervention. You responded, that the entire continent of Europe was better off because of the late intervention of America(and over 50 other countries https://ww2db.com/country/ ), in WWII. When I said "since", I didn't mean the day after. I won't begin to talk about the countries we have invaded between 1901-1945(Honduras, Panama, Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Philippines). Or, the countries that America has sent in troops to intervene in their internal affairs, protests, elections, and civil uprisings(Cuba, China, Korea, Italy, the Russo-Japanese wars, Spain, Japan, Turkey).

Since you want to talk about American involvement during WWII, lets proceed. While the Soviet troops fought the fascist army(Germany), the Americans and the British were engaged in what they usually do - Terror. They methodically destroyed the peaceful population of Dresden and Hamburg, through their carpet bombing of cities that had nothing to do with the war, or military productions. They were no better than the fascists. In Dresden, approximately 120,000 - 250,000 civilians were killed per night, most of them refugees. Also, tell me, why did America drop 2 nuclear bombs over a country(killing up to 0.5M women and children), that had given up, and was seeking a surrender agreement? This action was disapproved by Eisenhower, Nimitz and Curtis Limae, and was a blatant violation of the Hague Convention of 1907. That is, "there is no justification for unlimited destruction or attacks on civilians and civilian objects per se". After the occupation of Japan by American troops, 10 million people died of starvation. We then started our "kill communist all over the world" campaign of terror, beginning in the early 40's.(China, Italy, Greece, France, Philippines, Peru, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Albania). This imaginary manufactured justification, continued in earnest from the 50's(China, Korea, British Guyana, Greenland, Guatemala, Indonesia, Lebanon, Panama, Viet Nam, Haiti, Congo/Zaire, El Salvador, Brazil, Killed the president of the Dominican Republic, Peru, Thailand, Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile, Syria, Portugal, Cyprus, Australia(dumping of Whitlam), Morocco, Angola, East Timor, Yemen, Iran, Zambia, South Africa(because of socialist reforms), Granada, Chad, Honduras, Turkey, Virgin Island, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Mexico, Rwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia(78 days of aerial bombing), Venezuela, Syria, and Lebanon). Read the facts for yourself. https://www.quora.com/How-many-countries-has-the-USA-ruined , Or, will you just dismiss the facts, because of your cognitive bias?

To date the US has wrecked over 40 nations of the world. Including the world's truest democracy, Syria(maybe you could explain why I would say this?). The US have so far avoided prosecution from the ICC, for the crimes it has committed against humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_war_crimes . So, again, can you name ONE country that is better off due to American intervention, since WWII? Never mind, I'm sure you might find one person in the countries I mentioned, that thinks he is better off, as proof. I am no longer interested in your song and dance, smoke and mirrors, and unsupported lip service responses. America is only concerned with its own imperialist interests, not the interests of other countries. It is only interested in control, and not in cooperation. It is only interested in war, and not in peace. I spend too much time and effort, trying to demonstrate that the opinions and assumptions that I deposit, are based on facts and logic. There is no point for me to keep citing sources, facts, data, and evidence, just for you to dismiss my efforts, and respond with "me right, you wrong, you bad socialist, me good capitalist". At least afford me the polite courtesy and effort, of providing evidence to support it. I suppose it is always easier to criticize the movie, than it is to make the movie. Right? Do you even read and comprehend the entire context of my posts, or do you just cherry-pick whatever you want out of context?

First, lets assume people go into business to make a profit. Right? If 10 people buy 10 loafs of bread for $3 per loaf, that is $30 income to the bakery. If we minus the overhead of $1 per loaf, that is $20 profit for the owner. Right? For every $3 gained by the bakery, is a $3 loss for each of the 10 people buying the loafs. If this pattern is repeated every hour, for 8 hrs per day, 5 days a week, then the owner will gain a profit of $41,600 per year. And each of the consumers will lose $6,240 per year. So, unless the people can sell what they don't use, back to the bakery for the same price, then YEA, his gains are their losses. I could be wrong, but if person A become richer because of person B, then person B must become poorer. It is simple math. But, I suppose it is always easier to simply deny the obvious, rather than accept the inconvenient truth.

You are arguing nothing, and asserting a lie. No rational person would ever support a purely socialistic or capitalistic society. I am a person that cares about BOTH the free exchange of private capital AND the general welfare of all people. Not one of those that ONLY care about one or the other. You are just another corporate wanna-be, spewing out rote-learnt corporate talking points and sound bites. And, trying to defend the indefensible. Not once do you promote the benefits of a mixed government, or a mixed economy. Not once do you mention why a true capitalist society never has, and never will exist. Not once do you mention the major disadvantages of true capitalism, and its capitalist principles. Not once do you acknowledge the necessity for government intervention, and the role its social programs play in protecting the welfare and tranquility of its citizens. No, you just simply attack the straw man, that you created in the room. Socialism! Clearly you do not understand what a true democracy is, a true republic is, what true socialism is, or what any other true political and economic systems are. Or, you would not be insinuating that I might be wrong. Capitalism?


With all due respect, I think the difference between us, is that my mind is open, and can be influenced by the facts and logic you can present. My mind does not close down, every time my beliefs are threatened. I do not fear knowledge, or that I might be wrong. Since you don't present any evidence, I can't say that you are wrong. I can only support why I think I am right. Clearly you have less than a cursory understanding of ANY political/economical ideology, let alone the history and evolution of their core principles. So, I won't waste any more of your time. Unless, you do have something relevant to say. G'day.

 

Lol

 

I never claimed that America never intervened nefariously nor never went to war (and BTW on that point the Japanese were never going to surrender and give up. They refused to surrender after the first atomic bomb. Without the A-bomb millions of American and Japanese would have been killed in a conventional invasion of Japan.) But the fact remains that America is by far the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world and also has provided far more humanitarian aid and comfort to other countries than any other nation in history.

The person that buys a $3 loaf of bread can do so only because some capitalist has hired and paid him far more money than he otherwise would have been paid, and hence richer than he otherwise would have been -- because of some rich capitalist. A picky clarification: A business' net profit is nowhere near 66% of revenue. It is more like 5% to at most 10%.

 

Who is saying that you were claiming that the US never intervened in the affairs of sovereign countries? That illusion only exists in your mind, and in the straw man you just created. My question, for the fifth time, was for you to name just ONE country that is better off because of American intervention? And why? They are simple questions. I pointed out over 40 countries for you to choose from. Or, you could have chosen your own. You have talked about everything else, but the answer. Surely, the US marketing of capitalism, through its imperialism, should have produced at least ONE positive result. Especially, since its ideological principles are genius, right? Maybe America can learn from Japan's form of Capitalism, THAT ACTUALLY WORKS, and why? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinio...ary/japan-form-capitalism-works/#.XnxXLYgza70

I'm afraid your understanding of history is worse than your understanding of political and economical ideologies. Do you blindly accept the self-serving bias corporate/political rhetoric you are being fed(like WMD's)? Or, do you research your own facts? The "bandwagon position" only supports what you WANT to be true, not what is actually true. So, lets talk about the facts.

Before August 6th and 9th(bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), Italy and Germany were already defeated. Japan was the only country left. Now here are the lies to the gullible. And, the truth to the enlightened

Japan only surrendered after we dropped both bombs. Half-truth.

The US had been firebombing, carpet-bombing, and napalm-bombing the cities in Japan months before dropping the 2 bombs. Japan also knew they could not fend off any Russian intervention in the Pacific, as well as the US. At the Potsdam Conference, Japan asked for A CONDITIONAL SURRENDER. It was the "Emperors clause"(the Emperor cannot be tried for war crimes), that was refused by Roosevelt, and later Truman. They weren't interested in their beliefs, culture, or national pride. They only wanted unconditional surrender. Had they agreed to this condition, the war would have been over, and a half-million civilian lives would have been spared. Without this clause in their surrender, Russia would certainly have killed their Emperor on sight. It is ironic, that this clause was honored, even after their unconditional surrender. Even to the most cynical, Japan was a beaten nation, and trying to surrender. But Roosevelt, Truman, and James Byrnes(Defence Secretary), had other ideas. According to all the political correspondence, letters, radio records, government transcripts, Japan's lack of offensive military actions, and civilian testimonies, JAPAN WANTED ONLY TO SURRENDER. So, what is your evidence they didn't? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...dbc15c-3620-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html

Japan's citizens were warned in Hiroshima and Nagasaki(with leaflets) of the impending atomic bomb attack. This was a lie.

There was no warning on what specific city the bomb would be dropped on. It was after the first bomb was dropped in Hiroshima, that the citizens were warned(after the fact). Truman had only 2 reasons for dropping the bombs, and killing over a quarter million civilians. The first was to show Russia and China that we actually have a working Atomic bomb, and will use it. The second was to show that we had more than one that we could use(we only had 4 at the time). http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/26/a-day-too-late/

Dropping the bombs over Japan, would have saved millions of American lives. This was a lie.

The true estimation was, that there would be 40,000 soldiers killed in an invasion of Japan.

Firstly, my example was only a hypothetical. In my example, it is totally irrelevant where the person buying the loaf of bread, gets the $3 from. It is totally irrelevant what the profit margin is for the bakery. It is totally irrelevant if a person is paid what he is worth or not. Lets just keep it simple, instead of this obfuscated gibberish. If you have $100, and you give me $80 for my product, then you are $80 poorer, and I am $80 richer. If 10 people give me $80 for my product, and if I have no overheads(fell off the back of a truck), then I will be $800 richer. And each of the 10 people $80 poorer. If you refuse to understand this level of commonsense, and simple math, then we're done here.

I cannot open a mind, that is fighting to stay closed. I cannot force anyone to accept any facts, that threatens their core beliefs. And, I am certainly not here to converse with anyone, who is only interested in going the distance. I think that it is best that you continue to speak to the choir, because outside of the choir you must have evidence.