Barack Huessin Obama's terrorist friends?

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. Banned
    whiskers's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Age
    27
    Posts
    551
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    15.03%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    He also approved the first stimulus package which is IMO was retarded.



    The only thing that makes money valuable is its scarcity. So if you give everyone the same amount, it's like you did nothing at all.

    Increasing the money supply does nothing but increase the national debt. Every dollar is printed with interest attatched to it.
    Printing more money does not mean more wealth. The new money has to borrow value from the existing currency. So you dont end up with more wealth, you just get inflation. .....and minimum wage doesnt come up fast enough to keep up with this tactic the crooks at the federal reserve pull on the poor. One ounce of Gold is worth around $900 now, which is the only good way to measure inflation. If you've owned gold for a while, nows your chance to triple your money. But I dont think now would be a great time to go selling off gold lol


    all the stimulus package likely did was give apple record Ipod sales (rolls eyes)

  2. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Monk View Post
    Do you even realize that Stalin was in russia, while hitler was in Germany?

    Umm...it was a statement about going from extreme to another....
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  3. Registered User
    mmorpheuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    1.86%

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Cut taxes and have government get out of the way.
    Thats Borderline Socialism Rob.


    To some people, that comment just made you Karl Marx's pal.
    •   
       

  4. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by whiskers View Post



    The only thing that makes money valuable is its scarcity. So if you give everyone the same amount, it's like you did nothing at all.

    Increasing the money supply does nothing but increase the national debt. Every dollar is printed with interest attatched to it.
    Printing more money does not mean more wealth. The new money has to borrow value from the existing currency. So you dont end up with more wealth, you just get inflation. .....and minimum wage doesnt come up fast enough to keep up with this tactic the crooks at the federal reserve pull on the poor. One ounce of Gold is worth around $900 now, which is the only good way to measure inflation. If you've owned gold for a while, nows your chance to triple your money. But I dont think now would be a great time to go selling off gold lol


    all the stimulus package likely did was give apple record Ipod sales (rolls eyes)

    The flight to safety was mainly oil and gold as a backup.

    Pelosi and Congress want anther package. When Obama gets elected, you are going to get another one.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  5. Banned
    whiskers's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Age
    27
    Posts
    551
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    15.03%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    Thats Borderline Socialism Rob.
    ????
  6. Registered User
    mmorpheuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    1.86%

    Quote Originally Posted by whiskers View Post
    ????

    Socialism is the extreme version of getting the government "out of the way"
  7. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    Socialism is the extreme version of getting the government "out of the way"

    Talk about a complete twisting and distorting of words.

    Wow.

    Rob a socialist. Now THATS funny.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  8. Registered User
    mmorpheuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    1.86%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    Talk about a complete twisting and distorting of words.

    Wow.

    Rob a socialist. Now THATS funny.

    I said borderline.

    He's the one that wanted the government to "get out of the way". That, is borderline Socialism.

    The problem is people want to bandy about terms but take little time to actually think long term about outcomes,consequences, or feasibility.

    So many people throw socialism around like they've actually ever seen it. It's never been practiced, and the last thing one would see is Russia or China. Just because they happened to put shoes in the oven and call them biscuits, doesn't make it so.

    Technically, a true democracy, with "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon"(- Garret Hardin) would support and foster socialism far moreso than anything else that's tried to lay claim to it.

    Unfortunately people want to confuse socialism- the economic theory -with the communist governments that have claimed it despite having command economies.

    I repeat.

    Socialism is an economic theory. Not a form of government. It was never intended to be tied to dictatorships and communist governments.

    There wasn't supposed to be a government at all. Only We the People. Sound familiar?
    Folks really need to stop trying to scare little children with that word by misconstruing it to mean something it really doesn't.
  9. Senior Member
    b unit's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  242 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,646
    Rep Power
    1425
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    67.86%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    How can a modern day government govern while keeping out of the way?

    Do you have any examples of a government that gets out of the way?

    Some definitions of government:

    - The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation

    - The mode of governing; the system of polity in a state; the established form of law.

    - The right or power of governing; authority.

    - The person or persons authorized to administer the laws; the ruling power; the administration.

    The ideals of government were meant for the people and to serve the people but is that happening in reality?

    Give me a government that stays out of the way and i'm there.
  10. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    I said borderline.

    He's the one that wanted the government to "get out of the way". That, is borderline Socialism.
    You can try and justify it all you want, but it would take 5 minutes of his posts to know what he's talking about before saying he's borderline socialist.


    Its just funny and sad at the same time. Its not even borderline
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  11. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    How can a modern day government govern while keeping out of the way?

    Do you have any examples of a government that gets out of the way?

    Some definitions of government:

    - The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation

    - The mode of governing; the system of polity in a state; the established form of law.

    - The right or power of governing; authority.

    - The person or persons authorized to administer the laws; the ruling power; the administration.

    The ideals of government were meant for the people and to serve the people but is that happening in reality?

    Give me a government that stays out of the way and i'm there.
    Here is one example.

    Stop creating and/or amending laws that force banks to lend to lower income people or people with bad credit in the effort to prop them up or be "more fair".

    If they didn't do that, you wouldn't have the economic crisis we have nor the environment in which it gets exploited.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  12. New Member
    Turd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    45
    Rep Power
    109
    Level
    6
    Lv. Percent
    36.83%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    Here is one example.

    Stop creating and/or amending laws that force banks to lend to lower income people or people with bad credit in the effort to prop them up or be "more fair".

    If they didn't do that, you wouldn't have the economic crisis we have nor the environment in which it gets exploited.
    Poor people cause the collapse of the worlds economies.
  13. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Turd View Post
    Poor people cause the collapse of the worlds economies.




    When all those bad mortgages are bought and sold and pushed from a government run agency, Fannie and Freddie (because they make money flipping that debt to private companies), then yes....bad debt and bad mortgages causes a cancer in the system. It was government run policies to prop up the poor that caused it. It forced banks to lend to these people to maintain their ratings for interbank lending.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  14. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,504
    Rep Power
    1097383
    Level
    74
    Lv. Percent
    53.49%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    I think he might have been confused Kruger (sorry I was ready to call you JP, and the rest ofthe Seinfeld cast).

    It is not the people that caused it, you are right it was the government and its agencies. I liken it to this analogy "give a gun to a chimp and the chimp shoots someone, you dont blame the chimp"
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  15. Senior Member
    b unit's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  242 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,646
    Rep Power
    1425
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    67.86%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    This shows just how clueless you are on the current situation.


    When all those bad mortgages are bought and sold and pushed from a government run agency, Fannie and Freddie (because they make money flipping that debt to private companies), then yes....bad debt and bad mortgages causes a cancer in the system. It was government run policies to prop up the poor that caused it. IT forced banks to lend to these people to maintain their ratings for interbank lending. Do you need a picture with crayons?
    who benefitted the most $$$ from this government initiative?

    certainly not the poor, they are worst off now than ever before.

    IMHO the ideals of govt are to serve the people however in reality they serve first the big businesses that "contributed" the most to their campaign funds for office, so who benefitted the most from the government initiative to give poor people an "opportunity" to own their own home.

    also the poor IMHO fell over from the increased high interest rates, who raised the rates and why?

    the economic crisis is affecting a lot of europe, the uk and most of the western world not just the USA, too much credit, banks were handing out credit cards like candy, finance institutions were giving money away to anyone who could sign a form, it all comes down to greed IMHO, people want big screen tv's, big cars, big houses, fancy clothes, how is a good majority paid for it? CREDIT.

    this is just my humble opinion and just my take on things, govt, banks, big business and a good majority of the population have contributed to the crisis in some way or another.
  16. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    who benefitted the most $$$ from this government initiative?

    certainly not the poor, they are worst off now than ever before.

    They did in the beginning. Making 50k but being able to get a mortgage for 300k+ homes? You think its rich people defaulting on their mortgages? You find homes now abandoned and the people just left. Why? They had bad credit to begin with..what do they care if they default on the loan. Come on down to SWFL...you can see neighborhoods abandoned with spec houses everywhere.


    Contrary to popular belief, the poor are not worse off. They are still poor but are getting help for the government to stay in that house. Guess from who....those who pay taxes.

    IMHO the ideals of govt are to serve the people however in reality they serve first the big businesses that "contributed" the most to their campaign funds for office, so who benefitted the most from the government initiative to give poor people an "opportunity" to own their own home.
    Fannie and Freddie are government run entities. If you asked every banker in 1995 if he wanted to give out these loans, the answer would be no. The majority of banks that failed are investment banks that bought pools of these mortgages from Fannie and Freddie and vice/versa...why? They could borrow with little collateral, buy mortgage pools, flip them to someone else for more money...other banks..other countries banks...other countries sovereign funds, etc.... Were they told to stop? Hell no....they were told to do more from your government.

    That was started in 95 (first investment Bank was Bear Sterns in 97) and spread in the next 8 years.

    When the bubble started to take off, everyone invested in real estate. Peoples houses appreciated by 2 or 3x...Those people took out home equity to tap it. People bought land like crazy. I flipped lots for over year and never looked at one...I bought them looking at statellite views and knowing where they were. I bought them one minute and sold them in 10 minutes for 30-40% profit. It was crazy how much money was being funneled into real estate all based on the perception that prices would keep going higher. Now, the market crashes...people start defualting on loans...property values start to fall...people owe more on their house than its worth. They can't sell..they can't move....you have gridlock.....all because the government was backing all these loans and propping up prices.

    When government intervenes, Wall Street and investors lick their chops because they know they are smarter than the people making the rules. They get in, make their money, they get out.

    also the poor IMHO fell over from the increased high interest rates, who raised the rates and why?
    ARM's readjust. You know that when you sit down and sign. Subprime loans...NODOC loans, NIV loans, etc...were created by our government.



    the economic crisis is affecting a lot of europe, the uk and most of the western world not just the USA, too much credit, banks were handing out credit cards like candy, finance institutions were giving money away to anyone who could sign a form, it all comes down to greed IMHO, people want big screen tv's, big cars, big houses, fancy clothes, how is a good majority paid for it? CREDIT.
    Which was enabled by what? THe lowering of the amount of collateral these banks needed to lend money. College campus's weren't flooded with credit card companies handing out cards like candy until when...the 90's. Why? Easy credit.


    this is just my humble opinion and just my take on things, govt, banks, big business and a good majority of the population have contributed to the crisis in some way or another.

    You want to kill business and keep this bubble/burst scenario in play? Have the government keep backing mortgages, banks, business.....if there is no risk to the downside, why would you and everyone else not invest in them? By the time these defaults start effecting something, the ones who made a killing are out anyway. They don't care. They made their money. Funnel money, create a another bubble, cash out, move on. Thats what the market will do. Tech bubble, housing bubble, commodity bubble...its one after another.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  17. Senior Member
    b unit's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  242 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,646
    Rep Power
    1425
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    67.86%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    That is true but i don't say kill big business, i say they have some of them have to be held accountable just as those who took what they couldn't afford.

    basically my take on it is GREED has caused it, GREED from all concerned, and yes, it's the people who take responsibility for their finances that are left to get screwed in the ass once again.
  18. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Holy crap.

    I write to have government cut taxes and get out of the way,
    Don't check the computer for a day,
    I come back to find me getting accused of being a SOCIALIST?!?

    Dude. Morpheus. What are you talking about?

    Government staying out of the economy as much as possible is called Capitalism.

    Socialism's central belief is of government managing the economy.

    Wow.
  19. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    That is true but i don't say kill big business, i say they have some of them have to be held accountable just as those who took what they couldn't afford.

    basically my take on it is GREED has caused it, GREED from all concerned, and yes, it's the people who take responsibility for their finances that are left to get screwed in the ass once again.
    I understand what you're saying B, but the fact of the matter is, banks have been around for hundreds of years NOT giving out bad loans to unqualified people. Believe it or not they've been greedy the whole time....thats how capitalism works. Government getting involved in the loan market through Fannie and Freddie fundamentally changed the attitude in the business world.

    Look at it this way, if you were a bank, could give out as many bad loans as you want, making a profit for each one, then turn around and sell each loan to the government and taking no risk on the risky loans......wouldn't you?
  20. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Fastone View Post
    Rob, contrary to what you might think, the government has never been out of the way. btw, how much have your taxes been cut in the last 8 years.

    :bruce3:
    Government has never stayed out of the economy? I agree to an extent, however, virtually every economic intervention that the American government has ever attempted has had negative unintended consequences to the economy.

    As for the taxes, I don't know, but they haven't been cut enough.
  21. Senior Member
    b unit's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  242 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,646
    Rep Power
    1425
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    67.86%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I understand what you're saying B, but the fact of the matter is, banks have been around for hundreds of years NOT giving out bad loans to unqualified people. Believe it or not they've been greedy the whole time....thats how capitalism works. Government getting involved in the loan market through Fannie and Freddie fundamentally changed the attitude in the business world.

    Look at it this way, if you were a bank, could give out as many bad loans as you want, making a profit for each one, then turn around and sell each loan to the government and taking no risk on the risky loans......wouldn't you?
    not me bro but it's a crazy world dude, some people gotta get what they can for as less as they can

    personally, i don't buy what i can't afford, don't borrow whay i can't pay back and i don't lend out what i can't afford to lose.

  22. Registered User
    mmorpheuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    1.86%

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Holy crap.

    I write to have government cut taxes and get out of the way,
    Don't check the computer for a day,
    I come back to find me getting accused of being a SOCIALIST?!?

    Dude. Morpheus. What are you talking about?

    Government staying out of the economy as much as possible is called Capitalism.

    Socialism's central belief is of government managing the economy.

    Wow.
    Quit acting coy.

    Me saying that you put forth a theory that is borderline socialism is far from calling you a socialist;however, your mistake is understandable seeing as how you have no clue what socialism is.

    Contrary to the folk wisdom you have decided to regurgitate, a true socialist economy is people run, as there is no centralized "government" at all. Employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market.

    It's the capitalist economies that are dependent upon government regulation. It's the reason you have never seen a free market in your lifetime. Psychologically people trend toward depletion of resources, which is only encouraged by a system based upon getting as much as one can for ones own self.

    Eventually you get what you have today, wherein Ownership and control of the financial levers of economic life remain entirely in the private hands of the richest people in the country.
    Last edited by mmorpheuss; 10-16-2008 at 08:24 AM.
  23. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    Quit acting coy.

    Me saying that you put forth a theory that is borderline socialism is far from calling you a socialist;however, your mistake is understandable seeing as how you have no clue what socialism is.

    Contrary to the folk wisdom you have decided to regurgitate, a true socialist economy is people run, as there is no centralized "government" at all. Employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market.

    It's the capitalist economies that are dependent upon government regulation. It's the reason you have never seen a free market in your lifetime. Psychologically people trend toward depletion of resources, which is only encouraged by a system based upon getting as much as one can for ones own self.

    Eventually you get what you have today, wherein Ownership and control of the financial levers of economic life remain entirely in the private hands of the richest people in the country.
    I'm not acting coy. You're just totally wrong.

    Here's the definition I pulled from wikipedia, if you have a better one, by all means, post it.

    Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

    Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.


    I assume what you're referring to is Libertarian Socialism. I assure you, when I said government staying out of the economy, I was not advocating union ownership of business.

    Compare that to the Wiki definition of capitalism:

    Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market[2], rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, incorporate, employ workers, and use money provided by central banks, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.[2] In theory, production and distribution in a capitalist system are governed by the free market rather than state regulation,[3] with state action confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market[4] though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.[5] Classic unrestrained capitalism is confined mostly to theory today, as "all of the capitalistic societies of the West have mixed economies" with interventionist state regulation, social programs[6] and state ownership of some sectors.

    What I advocate is "classic unrestrained capitalism". I think "government cutting taxes and getting out of the way" definitely fall in line with that economic theory.
  24. Registered User
    mmorpheuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    1.86%

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I'm not acting coy. You're just totally wrong.

    Here's the definition I pulled from wikipedia, if you have a better one, by all means, post it.

    Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

    Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.


    I assume what you're referring to is Libertarian Socialism. I assure you, when I said government staying out of the economy, I was not advocating union ownership of business.

    Compare that to the Wiki definition of capitalism:

    Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market[2], rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, incorporate, employ workers, and use money provided by central banks, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.[2] In theory, production and distribution in a capitalist system are governed by the free market rather than state regulation,[3] with state action confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market[4] though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.[5] Classic unrestrained capitalism is confined mostly to theory today, as "all of the capitalistic societies of the West have mixed economies" with interventionist state regulation, social programs[6] and state ownership of some sectors.

    What I advocate is "classic unrestrained capitalism". I think "government cutting taxes and getting out of the way" definitely fall in line with that economic theory.



    So does the fairy tale of a capitalist "free market". You still haven't addressed this issue. You have never seen a free market, and for some reason you fail to understand that the reason behind it isn't an issue with governmental regulation, it is an issue with human nature.




    I understand what you are basing your ideas on,unfortunately, "getting out of the way" is in direct opposition to what capitalism creates and mandates long term. Either a ruling class is established, or regulations are implemented ( by the ruling class, ironically) to keep things from getting out of control.



    "True Socialism" would seem to cover things better than what you have listed. It is not union ownership, it is each individual worker owning their own means of production. i.e employee ownership.

    Based on your comments about Obama and socialism, it seems that you may be of the opinion that the bailout was a socialist move.

    Socialism vs. the government bailout of capitalism

    As stated previously, my comments were not accusing you of being a socialist, but simply to point out that the line of what you are asking for is quite thin as far as the differing sides asking for the same thing are concerned.

    In terms of anarcho-capitalism, (or classic unrestrained if that sounds better) it ignores feasibility while disregarding the fact that there is a reason for regulation of a young economic system that has yet to see anything but regulation since it's inception.
  25. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I come back to find me getting accused of being a SOCIALIST?!?

    You know you are.....stop trying to deny it.

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  26. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.2%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    As an aside, I find it painfully ironic that the same pundits who openly chide Senator Obama's perceived (the dreaded) Socialized Medicine, are the same who are resoundingly supporting the strict Socialization of the Economy.

    Interestingly enough, the 'Bail Out', 'Buy Out', or whatever ambiguous monicker one imparts on this financial crisis, is Socialism 'reversed' - so to speak: Privatizing public funds to dictate market behavior. In the classical sense, private capital is rebuked in favor of public capital.
  27. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    As an aside, I find it painfully ironic that the same pundits who openly chide Senator Obama's perceived (the dreaded) Socialized Medicine, are the same who are resoundingly supporting the strict Socialization of the Economy.

    Interestingly enough, the 'Bail Out', 'Buy Out', or whatever ambiguous monicker one imparts on this financial crisis, is Socialism 'reversed' - so to speak: Privatizing public funds to dictate market behavior. In the classical sense, private capital is rebuked in favor of public capital.

    Who?

    "You must name names!"
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  28. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.2%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    Who?

    "You must name names!"
    It is the McCarthy Trials all over again!

    I will check my PVR, as I recall recording several interviews with financial 'experts', and 'talking heads', and was quite interested in the colorful language through which they characterized clear Socialist tendencies as 'Market-driven'.

    This is not to say I agree or disagree with the decision; or further, I am not commenting on whether action was or was not necessary! Just that I find it funny that certain individuals who avoid 'Socialized Medicine' as if it is the Bubonic Plague are somewhat lauding this move.

    (Obama is much more of a Keynesian Welfare Politician rather than a Socialist; you know this, B).
  29. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    It is the McCarthy Trials all over again!

    I will check my PVR, as I recall recording several interviews with financial 'experts', and 'talking heads', and was quite interested in the colorful language through which they characterized clear Socialist tendencies as 'Market-driven'.

    This is not to say I agree or disagree with the decision; or further, I am not commenting on whether action was or was not necessary! Just that I find it funny that certain individuals who avoid 'Socialized Medicine' as if it is the Bubonic Plague are somewhat lauding this move.

    (Obama is much more of a Keynesian Welfare Politician rather than a Socialist; you know this, B).

    Yeah, I could see that.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  30. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    So does the fairy tale of a capitalist "free market". You still haven't addressed this issue. You have never seen a free market, and for some reason you fail to understand that the reason behind it isn't an issue with governmental regulation, it is an issue with human nature.
    I disagree. I think human nature is harnessed to its full potential in laissez-faire, free market capitalism. Human nature is to be greedy. If you're not being greedy, you're denying any living things natural instinct to survive and thrive. What is really scary is a system like socialism that tries to "overcome" this inherent greed and institute "fairness". What usually ends up happening is that whoever is doing the instituting, namely government, unfairly steals wealth from one who earns their keep and gives it to another who does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    I understand what you are basing your ideas on,unfortunately, "getting out of the way" is in direct opposition to what capitalism creates and mandates long term. Either a ruling class is established, or regulations are implemented ( by the ruling class, ironically) to keep things from getting out of control.
    True capitalism doesn't create and mandate any policy. Supply and demand dictate policy.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "getting out of control"....do you mean coercive monopolies? Coercive monopolies are a myth and crock of sh!t. The only time a coercive monopoly can exist is with the help of the government as they are the only entity that can legally use force and thus have an advantage over their competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    "True Socialism" would seem to cover things better than what you have listed. It is not union ownership, it is each individual worker owning their own means of production. i.e employee ownership.
    What this theory discounts is that the worker only achieved their own "means of production" on the back of the individual who created it. Do you give credit to the assembly line to Henry Ford or his employees? Don't you think Henry Ford, the man whose brain gave people the opportunity to make money, should make more than the people he pays to do what he says?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    Based on your comments about Obama and socialism, it seems that you may be of the opinion that the bailout was a socialist move.

    Socialism vs. the government bailout of capitalism
    I agree completely. The bailout, the nationalization of banks, the "economic stimulus package" are all socialist policies and I disagree with each one (even if I did make a cool $1200 on the stimulus ).l

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    As stated previously, my comments were not accusing you of being a socialist, but simply to point out that the line of what you are asking for is quite thin as far as the differing sides asking for the same thing are concerned.

    In terms of anarcho-capitalism, (or classic unrestrained if that sounds better) it ignores feasibility while disregarding the fact that there is a reason for regulation of a young economic system that has yet to see anything but regulation since it's inception.
    I'll agree that regulation has existed on the economy since the creation of the United States, insofar as tariffs and other minor inconveniences. However, the past 100 years have seen exponential growth in size and role of government, mainly through economic programs, such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, Farm Subsidies, the FDA, the Fed, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and many other expensive programs. Most of these programs simply do not work.

    I believe regulation should exist in the United States, but only to the extent to uphold the law and ensure the sanctity of contracts between individuals.


  31. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.2%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I disagree. I think human nature is harnessed to its full potential in laissez-faire, free market capitalism. Human nature is to be greedy. If you're not being greedy, you're denying any living things natural instinct to survive and thrive. What is really scary is a system like socialism that tries to "overcome" this inherent greed and institute "fairness". What usually ends up happening is that whoever is doing the instituting, namely government, unfairly steals wealth from one who earns their keep and gives it to another who does not.
    Natural inclinations - obviously speaking in a strictly naturalistic, material sense extending to other species - has nothing to do with "greed", as it were; as in laissez-fair capitalism, the necessity for accumulation is predicated upon survival: a bear accumulates food over a period in order to subsist; an early agricultural society harvests and stores to subsist over winter, and compliments that with hunting and so forth.

    I am trying to drive at the fundamental of Capital markets here: Scarcity. Reacting to scarcity in any system is natural - "greed" is not. 'Greed' and 'survival' are also fundamentally different concepts; 'greed' implies morality, while survival implies only sustenance.
  32. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Natural inclinations - obviously speaking in a strictly naturalistic, material sense extending to other species - has nothing to do with "greed", as it were; as in laissez-fair capitalism, the necessity for accumulation is predicated upon survival: a bear accumulates food over a period in order to subsist; an early agricultural society harvests and stores to subsist over winter, and compliments that with hunting and so forth.

    I am trying to drive at the fundamental of Capital markets here: Scarcity. Reacting to scarcity in any system is natural - "greed" is not. 'Greed' and 'survival' are also fundamentally different concepts; 'greed' implies morality, while survival implies only sustenance.
    Scarcity and Supply and Demand are pretty much synonymous, so I really can't take issue on that.

    Survival should be the ultimate moral imperative for all species, and is an end in itself. However, I disagree that survival implies only sustenance. Yes, you can get by eating once a month, but doesn't it make sense to eat more often, get stronger, thus making you more capable of getting food in the future? To thrive. Making more money, by the same token gives you ability to survive and thrive in the future.

    Greed and survival grow from the same tree, survival being the roots and greed being the trunk.
  33. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.2%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Scarcity and Supply and Demand are pretty much synonymous, so I really can't take issue on that.

    Survival should be the ultimate moral imperative for all species, and is an end in itself. However, I disagree that survival implies only sustenance. Yes, you can get by eating once a month, but doesn't it make sense to eat more often, get stronger, thus making you more capable of getting food in the future? To thrive. Making more money, by the same token gives you ability to survive and thrive in the future.

    Greed and survival grow from the same tree, survival being the roots and greed being the trunk.
    Your flaw is this: You are ascribing a moral character to survival; however, survival has nothing to do with morality. Survival is merely subsistence by function and definition - it is not a 'moral imperative' but a physical one. One survives to further life; one attempts to 'thrive' as a possible moral function. However, let us not confuse our terms here.

    To use your analogy, Survival is the entire tree itself, and greed is the parasitic organism growing upon it: Removing sustenance from the entire sum in order to further its gain (at the explicit and direct expense of another organism).
  34. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Your flaw is this: You are ascribing a moral character to survival; however, survival has nothing to do with morality. Survival is merely subsistence by function and definition - it is not a 'moral imperative' but a physical one. One survives to further life; one attempts to 'thrive' as a possible moral function. However, let us not confuse our terms here.

    To use your analogy, Survival is the entire tree itself, and greed is the parasitic organism growing upon it: Removing sustenance from the entire sum in order to further its gain (at the explicit and direct expense of another organism).
    Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

    Why can't survival be morality? Religions such as Christianity hold self-sacrifice to be the ultimate ideal, which is the opposite of survival. People commit suicide all the team. People eat, smoke, and drink themselves to death all the time. Why isn't it moral to do what's best for your own survival?

    By the way, I'd love to claim this line of thinking for myself, but I stole this from Ayn Rand. She claimed in objectivism that anything that helps to perpetuate life is good, while anything that hinders life is bad.
  35. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.2%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

    Why can't survival be morality? Religions such as Christianity hold self-sacrifice to be the ultimate ideal, which is the opposite of survival. People commit suicide all the team. People eat, smoke, and drink themselves to death all the time. Why isn't it moral to do what's best for your own survival?
    I find your last point the most thought-provoking, but allow me to respond to each comment in kind; beginning with the above quotes.

    Firstly, I do not subscribe to moral positivism, but rather a hybrid of moral skepticism/relativism - that is, I do not believe subscriptions to ideal behaviours are 'true' (in the most obvious, colloquial sense). This implies - and therein directly contradicts your position - that morality is not truthful, is not objective; therefore, imparting binary labels such as 'good' and 'bad' to morality are misnomers.

    Following this logic, survival is not a matter of 'good vs evil', or 'right vs., wrong' which are moral pragmatics, but rather of 'life over death'. As I said, survival is a physical concern, predicated most immediately on material objects, while greed is a moral concern: knowing that your accumulation is contingent upon a lack of accumulation by others. Greed is equatable with morality; survival and greed are not synonymous; therefore neither are morality and survival.

    By the way, I'd love to claim this line of thinking for myself, but I stole this from Ayn Rand. She claimed in objectivism that anything that helps to perpetuate life is good, while anything that hinders life is bad.
    Again, I do not believe in moral objectivism, and especially not as it pertains to issues of survival. Ascribing 'good and bad' to survival is a human projection, rather than being part of the Object (philosophical sense) itself.

    The bird does not eat the fly fully cognizant of the morality of death, or life, and so forth; the bird eats the fly as a manner of subsistence, who in turn ate the bacteria and so forth; morality is not innately tied in with processes of survival.

    One survive because of one's own attachment to life; one accumulates more than is necessary because of moral entitlement.
  36. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I find your last point the most thought-provoking, but allow me to respond to each comment in kind; beginning with the above quotes.

    Firstly, I do not subscribe to moral positivism, but rather a hybrid of moral skepticism/relativism - that is, I do not believe subscriptions to ideal behaviours are 'true' (in the most obvious, colloquial sense). This implies - and therein directly contradicts your position - that morality is not truthful, is not objective; therefore, imparting binary labels such as 'good' and 'bad' to morality are misnomers.
    This explains our inherent conflict. I most definitely am not a moral elativist. I do think if you base moral imperatives on life and death, its difficult to disprove, as there's not much more absolute than life and death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Following this logic, survival is not a matter of 'good vs evil', or 'right vs., wrong' which are moral pragmatics, but rather of 'life over death'. As I said, survival is a physical concern, predicated most immediately on material objects, while greed is a moral concern: knowing that your accumulation is contingent upon a lack of accumulation by others. Greed is equatable with morality; survival and greed are not synonymous; therefore neither are morality and survival.
    I didn't realize that greed is predicated by a lack of accumulation by others. Based upon that definition I'd say that greed and capitalism don't necessarily go hand in hand. I always thought greed meant, doing what's best for ones self, ie Rational Self-Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Again, I do not believe in moral objectivism, and especially not as it pertains to issues of survival. Ascribing 'good and bad' to survival is a human projection, rather than being part of the Object (philosophical sense) itself.

    The bird does not eat the fly fully cognizant of the morality of death, or life, and so forth; the bird eats the fly as a manner of subsistence, who in turn ate the bacteria and so forth; morality is not innately tied in with processes of survival.
    I'd disagree. Animals are programmed to do what they think is good for survival. What makes us human is that for the most part we are not programmed. We use knowledge, intelligence and learning to achieve what is programmed in animals. The downside is that we also have to learn to do what is right for life. We have to create the moral code that is already ingrained in animal in order to survive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    One survive because of one's own attachment to life; one accumulates more than is necessary because of moral entitlement.
    One survives because he eats, drinks, and defends himself from predators. One thrives because he finds that it makes things easier in eating, drinking, and defending himself from predators.
  37. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.2%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    This explains our inherent conflict. I most definitely am not a moral elativist. I do think if you base moral imperatives on life and death, its difficult to disprove, as there's not much more absolute than life and death.
    I am unsure, but I believe you are mischaracterizing moral relativism/skepticism. Most simply, these two adjunct epistemologies are the lack of moral absolutes; as opposed to subscription to moral absolutes (moral skeptics are agnostics/deists).

    I was stating that morality (as a function of intellectualism, emotion, normative behavior and so forth) necessarily cannot be ascribed to survival: A pragmatic, physical concern. I believe there was a touch of misunderstanding on your part there.

    I didn't realize that greed is predicated by a lack of accumulation by others. Based upon that definition I'd say that greed and capitalism don't necessarily go hand in hand. I always thought greed meant, doing what's best for ones self, ie Rational Self-Interest.
    Rational Self-Interest and Greed are not corollaries; however, greed must be present in Capitalism.

    Let us say, for example, that at any given point (X) in an economic system, there is a fixed, average value (Y) to be spread upon a large mass of individuals (GDP/GNP and so forth are not fixed, but just imagine for a very momentary period). As you know, new value cannot simply be created (Mr.Paulson believes so) or the proportionate, relation value of all Capital suffers; as a result, any one agent's accumulation of capital (larger piece of Y) must come at the expense of some other agent's accumulation of capital (smaller piece of Y); as opposed to the production of new capital - i.e., in order to increase one's own value, a proportionate amount of Y must be taken from another party.

    Rational Self-Interest is merely doing what one needs to subsist; greed, on the other hand, is a complete exaggeration of self interest: Excess. It is Capitalism.

    I'd disagree. Animals are programmed to do what they think is good for survival. What makes us human is that for the most part we are not programmed. We use knowledge, intelligence and learning to achieve what is programmed in animals. The downside is that we also have to learn to do what is right for life. We have to create the moral code that is already ingrained in animal in order to survive.
    Here, again though, you are terribly convoluting and misrepresenting morality as a function of subsistence; it is not. Animals do not have a sense of what we would deem, 'morality'. While, obviously, humans have the fortunate (unfortunate?) trait of morality, it still does not directly relate to survival.

    One survives because he eats, drinks, and defends himself from predators. One thrives because he finds that it makes things easier in eating, drinking, and defending himself from predators.
    At the cost of whom, though? Even in the earliest societies where gradients of social classes existed, the prosperity of some must necessarily come at the expense of others. Any one society can only produce a finite amount of socially necessary goods; goods which must be spread about that particular population. As a result, and as shown above with value creation, this dictates that in order for Person A to garner more of 'Y' (average sum value), Person B must garner less (literally, this is Capitalism).
  38. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I am unsure, but I believe you are mischaracterizing moral relativism/skepticism. Most simply, these two adjunct epistemologies are the lack of moral absolutes; as opposed to subscription to moral absolutes (moral skeptics are agnostics/deists).

    I was stating that morality (as a function of intellectualism, emotion, normative behavior and so forth) necessarily cannot be ascribed to survival: A pragmatic, physical concern. I believe there was a touch of misunderstanding on your part there.
    I fail to understand why survival and morality are mutually exclusive. I showed before there are moralities of self-sacrifice (Christianity), why can't there be an opposing morality of survival?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Rational Self-Interest and Greed are not corollaries; however, greed must be present in Capitalism.

    Let us say, for example, that at any given point (X) in an economic system, there is a fixed, average value (Y) to be spread upon a large mass of individuals (GDP/GNP and so forth are not fixed, but just imagine for a very momentary period). As you know, new value cannot simply be created (Mr.Paulson believes so) or the proportionate, relation value of all Capital suffers; as a result, any one agent's accumulation of capital (larger piece of Y) must come at the expense of some other agent's accumulation of capital (smaller piece of Y); as opposed to the production of new capital - i.e., in order to increase one's own value, a proportionate amount of Y must be taken from another party.
    I understand what you're saying now. To clarify, if Henry Ford creates the assembly line and puts out thousands of Model Ts, he's hurting the horse and buggy market, even as he's making cars available to people who couldn't otherwise afford them. I think it is a flaw to assume that hurting someone else's business is a drain on the economy as a whole. Obviously Ford helped improve the average person's life in addition to opening many new jobs that were not previously there when there were just horse and buggies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Rational Self-Interest is merely doing what one needs to subsist; greed, on the other hand, is a complete exaggeration of self interest: Excess. It is Capitalism.
    Doing what one needs to do to subsist is fine for capitalism. Who's to say what the individual needs to subsist other than the individual. If you own a small business you're trading a good for currency which you can use to purchase other goods which will hopefully improve your chances of survival and thriving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Here, again though, you are terribly convoluting and misrepresenting morality as a function of subsistence; it is not. Animals do not have a sense of what we would deem, 'morality'. While, obviously, humans have the fortunate (unfortunate?) trait of morality, it still does not directly relate to survival.
    Why not? I would argue that animals are programed with a morality aka code of behavior that dictates their actions. Yes, humans have to decide on their morality, but that doesn't mean that survival can not be in their code of behavior or even be that code of behavior. Like I said, there are moralities that are self-sacrificing which is in essence anti-survival, so the flipside of that is survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    At the cost of whom, though? Even in the earliest societies where gradients of social classes existed, the prosperity of some must necessarily come at the expense of others. Any one society can only produce a finite amount of socially necessary goods; goods which must be spread about that particular population. As a result, and as shown above with value creation, this dictates that in order for Person A to garner more of 'Y' (average sum value), Person B must garner less (literally, this is Capitalism).
    I agree, but I think this is misleading. The more parties present in the economy, the stronger the economy, as there are more options to the consumers and more goods available. Yes, the weaker competition with substandard goods or non-competative pricing will be put out of business by superior competition, but its ultimately for betterment of all involved.
  39. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27066
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.2%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I fail to understand why survival and morality are mutually exclusive. I showed before there are moralities of self-sacrifice (Christianity), why can't there be an opposing morality of survival?
    Have you, though? You have shown that one religion in particular forbids any entity aside from 'God' from causing the transition between one state of being, to another; what does that have to do with the morality of survival?

    Life and Death are states of being; survival is a material process. Stating that one religion in particular forbade the auto-transition of being does not equate to its moral position on survival; nor, even if that were the case, would that imply an objective standard of morality applied to all natural organisms in particular instances.

    I understand what you're saying now. To clarify, if Henry Ford creates the assembly line and puts out thousands of Model Ts, he's hurting the horse and buggy market, even as he's making cars available to people who couldn't otherwise afford them. I think it is a flaw to assume that hurting someone else's business is a drain on the economy as a whole. Obviously Ford helped improve the average person's life in addition to opening many new jobs that were not previously there when there were just horse and buggies.
    Where did I say it was a drain on the economy as a whole? In fact, I said that it was the necessary condition for the function of Capital - i.e., some must profit at the expense of others in order for Capitalism to be a stage of development; if you do not have that precondition, you have some other exchange based economic system.

    Consider it in this manner:

    The total sum of exchange values and produced values in our economy is represented by the number "1, 000, 000, 000"; now, as value cannot be instantaneously created (we agree, here) it must be exchanged between parties. So, let us assume I have an average value of 10, 000, and you an average value of 20, 000 and you want to increase your value. As one cannot instantaneously create new value with inflating market prices, you and I must exchange values; in order for one of us to 'thrive', it must come at the expense of the other.

    So, let us postulate that you create some new form of technology that allows you to produce twice the goods as myself in the same timeframe - this addition thereby increases your capacity for value, by taking away from mine: My value drops to 5, 000 and yours to 25, 000; in this respect, the total sum of values is unchanged, but the chasm between agents has - literally, in a very strict sense, this is Capitalism.

    Doing what one needs to do to subsist is fine for capitalism. Who's to say what the individual needs to subsist other than the individual. If you own a small business you're trading a good for currency which you can use to purchase other goods which will hopefully improve your chances of survival and thriving.
    No, no it is definitely not! The bolded portion, very, very closely is a line from one of Marx's work, though commune of the proletariat proceeds as opposed to Capitalism. In classically defined senses, 'Socialist' or 'Commune' societies are the basic production of socially necessary goods, at a rate at which the newly produced value only replaces the consumed values of production i.e., what you make replaces what you consumed to make it: Subsistence.

    Why not? I would argue that animals are programed with a morality aka code of behavior that dictates their actions. Yes, humans have to decide on their morality, but that doesn't mean that survival can not be in their code of behavior or even be that code of behavior. Like I said, there are moralities that are self-sacrificing which is in essence anti-survival, so the flipside of that is survival.
    Morality is a social, metaphysical and psychological construct. Do you truly believe a lion, for example, is aware of the 'morality' of his decisions in killing a gazelle? He merely kills the gazelle because he needs to - and, herein, we separate man from animal; an animal (aside from glutenous domesticated ones) will not eat beyond what they need.

    I agree, but I think this is misleading. The more parties present in the economy, the stronger the economy, as there are more options to the consumers and more goods available. Yes, the weaker competition with substandard goods or non-competative pricing will be put out of business by superior competition, but its ultimately for betterment of all involved.
    Closed economic systems can only produce and consume so much in finite markets - that is, increasing parties dictates increasing markets; as we have shown above, closed markets have relatively static values at point 'X'. As such, the need for new markets arises so that Capitalists (not being derogatory with this) can garner more Capital. There is only a finite amount of Capital in any one system.
  40. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Damn, I love having these exchanges with you, but I always get picked apart like a vulture in the end

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Have you, though? You have shown that one religion in particular forbids any entity aside from 'God' from causing the transition between one state of being, to another; what does that have to do with the morality of survival?

    Life and Death are states of being; survival is a material process. Stating that one religion in particular forbade the auto-transition of being does not equate to its moral position on survival; nor, even if that were the case, would that imply an objective standard of morality applied to all natural organisms in particular instances.
    That's not what I was referring to when I said Christianity preaches self-sacrifice. I meant that altruism is an important moral principle in the religion, ultimately manifested when Jesus gave his life to save everybody elses. Altruism is the moral imperative that one selflessly cares for others. Altruism is the moral opposite of Selfishness. Just as the ultimate expression of Altruism is sacrificing one's self for others, the ultimate expression of Selfishness is surviving and thriving, which I view as one in the same. I'm sticking to the tree metaphor dammit!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Where did I say it was a drain on the economy as a whole? In fact, I said that it was the necessary condition for the function of Capital - i.e., some must profit at the expense of others in order for Capitalism to be a stage of development; if you do not have that precondition, you have some other exchange based economic system.

    Consider it in this manner:

    The total sum of exchange values and produced values in our economy is represented by the number "1, 000, 000, 000"; now, as value cannot be instantaneously created (we agree, here) it must be exchanged between parties. So, let us assume I have an average value of 10, 000, and you an average value of 20, 000 and you want to increase your value. As one cannot instantaneously create new value with inflating market prices, you and I must exchange values; in order for one of us to 'thrive', it must come at the expense of the other.

    So, let us postulate that you create some new form of technology that allows you to produce twice the goods as myself in the same timeframe - this addition thereby increases your capacity for value, by taking away from mine: My value drops to 5, 000 and yours to 25, 000; in this respect, the total sum of values is unchanged, but the chasm between agents has - literally, in a very strict sense, this is Capitalism.
    If I understand what you are saying, basically in capitalism individuals hurt each other on a micro level but at a macro level they help the economy overall. Is that correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    No, no it is definitely not! The bolded portion, very, very closely is a line from one of Marx's work, though commune of the proletariat proceeds as opposed to Capitalism. In classically defined senses, 'Socialist' or 'Commune' societies are the basic production of socially necessary goods, at a rate at which the newly produced value only replaces the consumed values of production i.e., what you make replaces what you consumed to make it: Subsistence.
    I see what you are saying, but you're taking that line out of context. I said in the next line that the individual determines what is necessary for subsistence. Nobody is making anyone make money in capitalism, it is completely up to the individual to determine how much is "enough". That's why you have Bill Gates happy with 57 Billion, and the homeless guy on E. Fayette happy with essentially nothing.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Morality is a social, metaphysical and psychological construct. Do you truly believe a lion, for example, is aware of the 'morality' of his decisions in killing a gazelle? He merely kills the gazelle because he needs to - and, herein, we separate man from animal; an animal (aside from glutenous domesticated ones) will not eat beyond what they need.
    Well, with that definition, then obviously there is no morality in animals. I was going under the assumption that morality is merely a code of behavior that governs action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Closed economic systems can only produce and consume so much in finite markets - that is, increasing parties dictates increasing markets; as we have shown above, closed markets have relatively static values at point 'X'. As such, the need for new markets arises so that Capitalists (not being derogatory with this) can garner more Capital. There is only a finite amount of Capital in any one system.
    Word.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 06:59 PM
  2. The Two Faces of Barack Obama
    By lutherblsstt in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-14-2010, 02:26 PM
  3. Is Barack Obama really a socialist?
    By EasyEJL in forum Politics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 08:30 PM
  4. New Slogans For Barack Obama
    By bpmartyr in forum Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2008, 11:17 PM
  5. Barack Obama - still smokin'???
    By anabolicrhino in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-08-2007, 07:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in