Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

The issue was that the roaring twenties was effectively a stock economy. There was no real Hannibal money. 90% of it was literally just stocks which had their value go higher and higher and people are using stocks to trade instead of money. But once it crashed 90% of the economy vanished, the wealth was gone and that's why we have the Great depression.

 

And labor build those goods, the investors just finance the production of those goods. The labor force mans the army and navy that defends those investments, the police force that protects those investments and the consumer base that uses and purchases those products. Capitalism is not meant to be modern feudalism

 

Some investors finance production (or production of producer goods that aid production), others just own legal entitlements to take a share of production. And investors are not the same people as the entrepreneurs who, by their decisions and initiative, arrange for all the production factors to be applied to production, thus bringing the product into existence and obtaining rightful ownership of it.

Capitalism is a lot better than feudalism, though it retains feudalism's core of landowner privilege.

 

You obviously don't know the first thing about it. The stock prices went up because banks issued debt money for borrowers (stock speculators) to use to buy stocks (I have no idea what you imagine "real Hannibal money" might be). People did not use stocks to trade instead of money, that's just nonsense. The Great Depression happened because the Fed failed to intervene when the private commercial banks issued too much debt money to stock speculators in the late 1920s, and failed to intervene again when the monetary cycle turned negative, and the private banks were destroying too much debt money in the early 1930s.

 

No it isn't.

It's First World humanity which is collapsing ..... because the capitalist overlords are training us to own nothing.

 

you don't have to apologize for fiction.

in what world is acceptance of reality justification of anything

better to try and justify selfishness than to be selfish and try and pretend that I'm not

I think some people think that the more the times they say the word facts the less they have to produce any.

 

Oh right. When redistributionist welfare is somewhat functional, that's socialism in action.

 

So people are incapable of any kind of order without a ruling class dinively ordained with the authority to violently control them. Well, I disagree. But, certainly, to prevent people from peacefully exchanging in ways that socialists abhor, there will have to be a socialist order imposed.

 

And when they cooperate, peacefully, to do things that don't fit your socialist ethics, what should be the punishment?

While I do appreciate generalist thinking where it's useful, it's like pretending that things will just happen when your morals are enforced. It's no different than the Christian fundamentalists here who imagine that when everyone follows Jesus that there will be no sin.

 

I would disagree the people who are supporting socialism always point to Sweden Sweden is into socialist country they just have a lot of welfare for instance your social security is a private company in Sweden. There is an ugly side to this people who make $37,000 a year or the equivalent to that and whatever Sweden uses pay 60% taxes.

The fact that this is barely functional and barely sustainable indicates that it's not socialism if it was socialism they would be starving and possibly on their second genocide.

I'm not saying it's so good idea to break your country with welfare. It's just there's a difference not a huge one between socialism and welfare state.

These are distinctions you need to make when people point to Sweden and say socialism works there well no it doesn't because it's not socialist.

 

The people that socialism appeals to are people who don't want to work. Or they work in the job that has very little value. They don't like the idea of earning more to gain more status. The idea is use might to remove status and it never works because you always have the status of the elites and it's even more pronounced within socialism. Take Cuba for example people were budging together old 50s models cars while their emperor had a billion dollar yacht.

The wealth disparity between the elite and the surfs is much greater in the socialist economy than it is in a capitalist economy.

 

Cute spin. You were the one who said “someone has to impose that order”. I understand that to mean that every society needs a governing body dedicated to imposing laws, regulations, etc.

So you can do whatever you think you should with that.

 

What is the punishment in the same situation under capitalism? duh

So you really, really hate democracy, huh? You just spun it into a hideous thing.

 

You should when you are passing it off as fact.

It's not reality, just your incorrect opinion.

I have identified the facts. You only pretended your opinion was fact.

 

Where's the democracy in enforcing a model no one wants?

Remember, you're all free to start WoE's any time you like, but you're not ..... so even you don't it.

 

Say the word "fact" more. I don't think it's going to work.

 

Don't you know if you don't agree in lock step with people who say the word democracy a lot that means you hate democracy the disagreement cannot be tolerated in the democracy you haven't heard that before?

Everybody has the right to an opinion as long as it's the right opinion.

 

There should be a 6 month sunset clause that if a house remains unoccupied for 6 months in any 5 year period the Government takes it and turns it into affordable housing.

It would force landlords to lower rent.

 

Same brain-dead anti-economic thinking as always...

If an unoccupied house will get the land confiscated, the owner will just demolish the house and await the capital gain on the land. I already explained the only effective way to solve the housing crisis: tax the land value, and give every resident citizen a uniform exemption for the land they live on. That way, landowners are desperate for more tenants to reduce their tax bills, and will eliminate the housing shortage themselves, with no need for the government to spend any more on it. PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

In fact, it is a fact that I have identified the relevant facts and you have cited no facts.

 

That is what Robin Hood called stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

 

Yes. It's basically totally undemocratic 'democracy'.

 

a) It's none of the Govt's business what the OWNER of a property does with it. What if Govt decided it would check your house to make sure you had the right kind of furniture? Or were keeping it clean to some arbitrary standard? You'd be okay with that? Because your proposed interference and overreach is no different.

b) "Affordable housing" is housing YOU can afford. That's your job to figure out, no one else's. Who do you think is so special that they're entitled to live wherever they want for a discount, while everyone else has to live where they can afford? Anyone who just aks? What kind of BS is that?

c) No, it just will force landlords out of property, and you'll have nothing to rent.

 

Yep, that will happen too.

 

It is when, like land, it is only the "owner's" "property" in the first place because government says so and the owner is satisfying the conditions government attached to the title, like keeping the taxes current and conforming to land-use laws. The landholder can do what he wants with it when he is making just compensation to the community for what he is taking from everyone else. Until then, he needs to **** and show some appropriate gratitude for the subsidy everyone else is being forced to provide for him.

Everyone has an equal right to use what nature provided for all. If that right is abrogated by exclusive land tenure arrangements -- as it indisputably is in every economy above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages -- then everyone is owed just compensation for what is being taken from them. The most just and accurate compensation would be free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity.

Except the land. Which, in a just society, would be enough.