Advice Socialist Speaks
Created on: May 26th, 2015
Obviously, Capitalism is to blame and we must get rid of it for a better tomorrow.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.13) | 8 | 0 | 69 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,775 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 50 | https://www.bing.com |
| 11 | https://www.reddit.com/r/ytmnd/ |
| 10 | http://www.reddit.com/r/ytmnd |
| 9 | http://ytmnsfw.com/users/martinprince/ |
| 7 | https://www.reddit.com/r/ytmnd |
| Citations: |
|---|
| ?Obey Advice Dog by s4xton |
| ?Advice Max Speaks by eightbitprodigy |
| User: eightbitprodigy |
| User: s4xton |
(1)
(1)
(-7)
[ comment (and 11 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-7)
Name one country--JUST ONE--where, "in terms of economic growth, wealth for the average person, friendly people, rapid technological boosts, lowering costs of living, high levels of intelligence, superior healthcare system, etc. etc. etc." has occurred under the definition of capitalism you are using.
(3)
Second, it is not [b]my[/b] definition of capitalism. It is the [b]dictionary[/b] definition of capitalism, even ones from different organizations.
- United Kingdom, mostly, prior to World War II. Roughly starting around enlightenment era. Even more so prior to World War I.
- USA, same periods. Then, to a lesser degree (after Truman scaled back some New Deal programs), until the mid 1960s.
- Hong Kong after World War II
- New Zealand somewhat after the mid 1980s, until recently.
- Japan after World War II, but prior to some time in the 1980s or 1990s.
- China, somewhat after the 1970s and the scaling back of Maoist ideas by Deng Xiaoping.
- India somewhat after 1991.
- Chile mostly, after 1973
- Signapore after 1965
- Switzerland somewhat, but only compared to rest of continental Europe.
(-6)
[ comment (and 9 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-6)
[i]- United Kingdom, mostly, prior to World War II. Roughly starting around enlightenment era. Even more so prior to World War I.
- USA, same periods.[/i]
You are naming the US "mostly prior to World War II" as an example of "wealth for the average person...superior healthcare system" while ignoring not one but multiple depressions (more than 40, by some methods), major recessions, runs on banks, and an economy [b]SO FUCKING UNSTABLE[/b] that none other than that dyed-in-the-Pinko-wool Commie [b]J.P. Morgan[/b] essentially developed the anything but "free market" Federal Reserve System?!!
Jesus Fucking H. Christ, you are a moron with such a huge ego and so little actual knowledge that, as long as whatever bullshit someone posts on a retarded "Libertarian" blog, you'll swallow and choke on it like a fucking horse cock, you dimwitted coprophagic human kickboxing target.
(2)
Also, you seem to not be paying attention to part where I said "before World War I" or "prior to 1914", which is just after when the United States had it's government enforced [b]ANTI FREE MARKET[/b] Federal Reserve. I have been personally talking about this since at least 2006 - 2007, so don't act like I never heard of it.
None of this contradicts what I said before, it actually only goes further into detail.
(2)
Actually I'm not. I thought that I clearly implied that World War I had more economic freedom. I guess not. Times prior to World War I had more overall personal and economic freedom within the west. You could literally buy any drug you wanted to. You could buy any form of booze you wanted to. You could easily start a business with little money in your pocket, without worrying about filling out paperwork from and paying fees to 15 government agencies. You could go anywhere on earth without a passport. If you wanted to come to immigrate to America, you just had to survive the boat ride with no horrible disease.
The most noteworthy depressions occurred long after the federal reserve, some added regulations from the Wilson era, some added regulations starting with Hoover, continuing well after Franklin Delano Roosevelt grew the government by leaps and bounds. Virtually all the economic disasters you speak of occurred almost always when the government was at it's then record for largest and most powerful.
Even the 19th century panics (which were far tinier than anything happening after Wilson) coincided with government measures like imposing greenback money, or imposing national banks on the public, or some large scale war or some other scandal involving government.
(-5)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-5)
Hey, I know: let's ask them ol' "coolies" how awesome their freedom and health care were while they built our railroads. I mean, other than the hundreds of thousands of them that died before we forcibly removed them via the Acts of Exclusion. And basically two guys became gajillionaires.
And, hey fuckwad, that whole point of creating the Federal Reserve System was that "free market" instability was killing people and ruining their lives, you shit-for-brains-on-a-stick. Get it?: IT WASN'T WORKING!!
God damn, if I were one of your parents, I'd mercy kill you in the latest term abortion ever.
(2)
Were there poor people in those days, say around 1890 who had a hard time getting good healthcare in the USA or UK? Sure. But what country in that time would have done better? Something tells me (without looking it up) that I would have rather been a poor person trying to get it in the USA or UK in 1890 rather than in Russia, India, Mexico, Africa, etc.
[i]"And, hey fuckwad, that whole point of creating the Federal Reserve System was that "free market" instability was killing people and ruining their lives, you shit-for-brains-on-a-stick. Get it?: IT WASN'T WORKING!! "[/i]
Thanks, but I am already aware of the official government line. Which was co-written by great guys like JP Morgan, Nelson Aldrich and other bankers. Just thought I would inform you, governments lie sometimes, usually in their own favor.
What I find so tragic and ironic about the left is that they are mostly smart enough to know better and are skeptical or outright angry when governments start illegal wars or when they increase police powers, reduce civil liberties, work with big corporations to form monopolies, abuse the homeless, have judicial misconduct, have unjust drug or alcohol laws or working with religious fanatics like Rick Santorum. However, they believe all the government lines about banking.
(2)
This was the public statement written by the bankers themselves or an equivalent statement. One thing I will agree with is that yes, in freer markets, there is much more instability of certain kinds. But that is mostly instability for producers. Meaning that one individual producer, as time goes on, has to face more and more new competitors who likely have better understandings of new technology and production methods. The older producer (especially if a large corporation) often has a lot of years of accumulated dead weight and bureaucracies which make it harder for it to adjust itself to be competitive with newer and more agile companies.
Is there instability for the consumers as well? Yes, the consumers have the ability to buy ever increasingly affordable products and services at a better quality from newer firms. Nowadays, we see this quite frequently with software, video games, televisions, computers, cameras, mobile phones. There are also other occurances, like with Uber and Lyft vs the old taxi companies. Today, some mobile phones have more computing power than a lot of desktops from even just 5 to 10 years ago.
Even if we set aside this logic and modern day examples, all the related economic charts actually seem to show (between 1865 or end of US Civil War and 1914) that the alleged instability in banking you speak of was actually a good thing. Prices were falling for consumer goods. More and more people were able to afford some basic things we take for granted today. Exports from the USA were on the rise compared to imports. The industrial index grew. Technology improved. People joyously immigrated to the United States by the millions and sometimes made even enough money to send back to their home countries.
(2)
In fact, these trends even largely occurred prior to 1861 in the USA, outside of small panics.
Even if you don't believe me, lets look at some charts:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/GROWTH1850.
JPG
This chart is more expansive and covers the years between 1850 and 1900:
http://www.lagunabeachbikini.com/images/2014/economy/RGDP1850-19
00.png
another one between 1869 and 1918:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Stat
es#/media/File:US-GNP-per-capita-1869-1918.png
notice how [b]consistent[/b] the growth is, compared to the roller coaster GDP immediately after [i]your precious [b]Federal Reserve[/b] [/i] started:
http://bit.ly/1Rv2HU4
Also note how average consumer prices rose after the Federal Reserve (higher CPI means consumer goods cost more):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sawKP8aRMfw/Tzc5IwquNJI/AAAAAAAABJ4/v
W9VvBBnf9E/s1600/log_CPI_US.PNG
Wheras before, the CPI lowered while the GDP increased.
In fact, even if you look at government debt before and after the Federal Reserve started, it is clear that the debt was declining before it started and it increased after:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Publicly_Hel
d_Federal_Debt_1790-2009.png
So what is the evidence that the Federal Reserve has made [b]ANYTHING[/b] better?
In fact, much evidence suggests that it has made things worse since it has started:
- The USA engaged in more wars after the Federal Reserve started.
- national debt has rose and continues to rise
- presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929
- presided over the great depression
- recessions of 1953, 1957, 1969
- 1970s stagflation
- personal debt has increased since 1913 / 1914
- corporate debt too
- increased trade deficit
- decline of US industry
- increase of bankruptcy
(-5)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-5)
I'm laughing so hard at your examples I can barely type!!!! I don't even know where to begin, [b]YOU'RE SUCH A FUCKING TOOL!!![/b]
Ohh HECK, I guess this one'll do:
[i][B]etween 1865 or end of US Civil War and 1914...[p]eople joyously immigrated to the United States by the millions and sometimes made even enough money to send back to their home countries.[/i]
Joyously, huh? That is [u]PRECISELY[/u] the word usually associated with the immigrant experience in the US from that time period, from the Ashkenazi Jews to the Irish and their wacky coffin ships to scores of Catholic Poles to those plucky Chinese folks who were "excluded," or, you know, illegal in the US between 1882 and 1943.
It's all documented in that hilarious book by Jacob Riis, "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous."
(2)
You could argue that they were actually all masochists who came here to torment themselves, but I think that's unlikely.
(1)
The question left is always "well then what's the best answer"...I don't know but we can stop referring to things inappropriately.
(1)
Here is the definition of socialism:
(GOOGLE)
1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
2. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
3. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
(MERRIAM WEBSTER)
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2 b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(http://dictionary.reference.com/)
1. 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.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
So if we accept that socialism means that the state or the community owns and regulates everything or most of everything, then it exists now in most places incompletely (like roads/healthcare/police/banking/schools). But, every communist country that has existed fit these definitions of socialism perfectly.
(1)
Definition of Capitalism:
(GOOGLE)
1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
(dictionary.reference.com
1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
(MERRIAM WEBSTER)
1. a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government
2. 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
- Do individual people own things almost everywhere? Yes. Even in the most state controlled countries? Also yes.
- Are there countries where production / manufacturing are decided upon by individuals working for themselves or for a private company or corporation? Yes. Most countries today do have mixtures of this, as well as degrees of state control over industry, from mere regulation to partial state ownership to outright ownership.
- Do said manufactured products and services go either directly from said private producers or through a series of private sector middlemen? Yes, either almost always in some countries, or partially in more state controlled countries.
- Do financial decisions and wealth exchanges occur between private individuals and companies? Yes, even in most places.
So most countries have varying degrees of capitalism.
More info: http://herit.ag/1bLenhb
(-2)
[ comment (and 5 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
(-5)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-5)
(-1)
(-1)
Didn't seem harsh. I mean seriously, you do what you want that keeps you living so long as it hurts nobody. We'll all get flak for whatever it is, but we're here for such an insignificant amount of time and then we're gone. I don't take the time to let it bother me.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link