Looking forward to WWIII: Iran, Russia and China vs the USA

[Zaphod]

My soul is already rotten.

 

[Big Pimpin]

Mine too

 

[LAM]

Funny, I often think, just on the off chance that Christianity turns out to be true.

there would be about 5 people in heaven...

 

[Standard Donkey]

and as long as he isn't handing out free healing for the sick or helping those in need...

I'm pretty sure Jesus would be a socialist. What was it that jesus said about the rich?

what was it the bible said about the lazy and the freeloaders?

socialism works if everyone does their fair share.. problem with socialism is that everyone doesnt do their fair share

 

[Standard Donkey]

but to get back to the topic..


WWIII.... idk bout that one

 

[LAM]

what was it the bible said about the lazy and the freeloaders?

socialism works if everyone does their fair share.. problem with socialism is that everyone doesnt do their fair share

apparently capitalism doesn't work either by that standard above. the people with all the money create nothing of real value. the way the financial system works today in reality it does not create it only takes. and the real economy suffers because of it. this is what history has shown financial markets and speculators have always done.

 

[exphys88]

socialism works if everyone does their fair share.. problem with socialism is that everyone doesnt do their fair share

agreed, and capitalism doesn't work because people are inherently greedy. that's why we need a mix of each.

 

[troubador]

agreed, and capitalism doesn't work because people are inherently greedy. that's why we need a mix of each.

No, that's why capitalism works. You must produce something of value unlike the corporate socialism LAM calls capitalism.

 

[hoyle21]

what was it the bible said about the lazy and the freeloaders?

Refresh my memory. Can you also point out where is says you are supposed to post judgement?

 

[troubador]

Refresh my memory. Can you also point out where is says you are supposed to post judgement?

Ezekiel 25:17

 

[exphys88]

No, that's why capitalism works. You must produce something of value unlike the corporate socialism LAM calls capitalism.

You don't think that greed affects capitalism in a negative way?
Explain what you mean by corporate socialism to me.

 

[LAM]

No, that's why capitalism works. You must produce something of value unlike the corporate socialism LAM calls capitalism.

then why did the US economy almost collapse in 2008?

why is US GDP shrinking? and why is it increasing at a rate less than that of the "socialist" country's in the EU?

if it's working so well please do explain why the US economy is in recession, a result of credit being tightened to the working class?

if it works so well why do so many company's need their investments backed by the US government?

and why does the FSB, BIS, IMF, World Bank, UN and Club of Rome all state that the way finance and large firms do business must be changed because current trends of growth are unsustainable?

and why do computer models at MIT predict the collapse of the US economy in the next couple of decades?

and why are the economic trends in the US more aligned with those of 3rd Wold Nations?

and why does the US rank 3rd from the bottom in the OECD for most economic indicators?

* not what I said, what all of the experts all over the world are saying...

 

[theCaptn']

murr?

Myrrh is the aromatic oleoresin of a number of small, thorny tree species, used specifically for treating hemorrhoids


Sent from my jewPhone

 

[troubador]

You don't think that greed affects capitalism in a negative way?
Explain what you mean by corporate socialism to me.

So socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." except instead of the whole it's roughly the 1%. They control the economic system, can manipulate it and make money without producing anything. The legislation is catered to them and if the fuck up they get bailed out.

On the other hand capitalism is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market". The 1% doesn't produce and they don't worry about competition because there is no free market. LAM reminds us of that daily. He posted this link a few days ago.

For those who are interested in the real world, a look at the actual history suggests some adjustment -- a modification of free market theory, to what we might call "really existing free market theory." That is, the one that's actually applied, not talked about.And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That's, again, near a universal. So you -- whoever you may be -- you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it's good for your character, it's tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.So, if Third World debt gets out of control, you socialize it. It's not the problem of the banks that made the money. When the S&Ls collapse, you know, same thing. The public bails them out. When American investment firms get into trouble because the Mexican bubble bursts, you bail out Goldman Sachs. And -- the latest Mexico bail out, and on and on. I mean, there's case after case of this.

So capitalism has been defined by being a free market and as soon as we start socializing parts of it the people who want complete socialism declare capitalism evil.

 

[troubador]

So capitalism has been defined by being a free market and as soon as we start socializing parts of it the people who want complete socialism declare capitalism evil.

...Yet the characteristics in the article above are all antithetical to capitalism (ie the nanny State, getting subsidized, risk-free, bail me out, socializing debt) but they do correspond to collectivism, except in this case only within the wealthiest. This is the exact thing people on the far right have fought against many years before Noam Chomsky wrote that.

 

[troubador]

Blaming Capitalism for Corporatism by Saifedean Ammous and Edmund S. Phelps - Project Syndicate

NEW YORK ? The future of capitalism is again a question. Will it survive the ongoing crisis in its current form? If not, will it transform itself or will government take the lead?The term ?capitalism? used to mean an economic system in which capital was privately owned and traded; owners of capital got to judge how best to use it, and could draw on the foresight and creative ideas of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers. This system of individual freedom and individual responsibility gave little scope for government to influence economic decision-making: success meant profits; failure meant losses. Corporations could exist only as long as free individuals willingly purchased their goods ? and would go out of business quickly otherwise.
Capitalism became a world-beater in the 1800?s, when it developed capabilities for endemic innovation. Societies that adopted the capitalist system gained unrivaled prosperity, enjoyed widespread job satisfaction, obtained productivity growth that was the marvel of the world and ended mass privation.
Now the capitalist system has been corrupted. The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This system, however, is not capitalism, but rather an economic order that harks back to Bismarck in the late nineteenth century and Mussolini in the twentieth: corporatism.
In various ways, corporatism chokes off the dynamism that makes for engaging work, faster economic growth, and greater opportunity and inclusiveness. It maintains lethargic, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic newcomers and outsiders, and favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals? economic freedom and responsibility. Today, airlines, auto manufacturers, agricultural companies, media, investment banks, hedge funds, and much more has at some point been deemed too important to weather the free market on its own, receiving a helping hand from government in the name of the ?public good.?
The costs of corporatism are visible all around us: dysfunctional corporations that survive despite their gross inability to serve their customers; sclerotic economies with slow output growth, a dearth of engaging work, scant opportunities for young people; governments bankrupted by their efforts to palliate these problems; and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of those connected enough to be on the right side of the corporatist deal.
This shift of power from owners and innovators to state officials is the antithesis of capitalism. Yet this system?s apologists and beneficiaries have the temerity to blame all these failures on ?reckless capitalism? and ?lack of regulation,? which they argue necessitates more oversight and regulation, which in reality means more corporatism and state favoritism.
It seems unlikely that so disastrous a system is sustainable. The corporatist model makes no sense to younger generations who grew up using the Internet, the world?s freest market for goods and ideas. The success and failure of firms on the Internet is the best advertisement for the free market: social networking Web sites, for example, rise and fall almost instantaneously, depending on how well they serve their customers.
Sites such as Friendster and MySpace sought extra profit by compromising the privacy of their users, and were instantly punished as users deserted them to relatively safer competitors like Facebook and Twitter. There was no need for government regulation to bring about this transition; in fact, had modern corporatist states attempted to do so, today they would be propping up MySpace with taxpayer dollars and campaigning on a promise to ?reform? its privacy features.
The Internet, as a largely free marketplace for ideas, has not been kind to corporatism. People who grew up with its decentralization and free competition of ideas must find alien the idea of state support for large firms and industries. Many in the traditional media repeat the old line ?What's good for Firm X is good for America,? but it is not likely to be seen trending on Twitter.
The legitimacy of corporatism is eroding along with the fiscal health of governments that have relied on it. If politicians cannot repeal corporatism, it will bury itself in debt and default, and a capitalist system could re-emerge from the discredited corporatist rubble. Then ?capitalism? would again carry its true meaning, rather than the one attributed to it by corporatists seeking to hide behind it and socialists wanting to vilify it.

 

[troubador]

if it's working so well please do explain why the US economy is in recession, a result of credit being tightened to the working class?

if what is working well? Capitalism? We don't have a capitalist economy. We have corporate socialism or corporatism that you call capitalism for propaganda purposes.