Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2024, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 12:15 pm

Feels like an opening salvo.

Corrupted agencies cannot compete with organized disruptors of the System. 

Look to see more armed police prancing about - a standard third world response to insecurity by those in power.
 
 

Ironic how community organizers work on a global scale. The side protesting for peace disrupt foreign nations and those protesting for human rights destroy domestic tranquility.

Sumela » 26 Jul 2024, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 11:46 am

Sometimes these events are simply very funny to me.
Watching West War Oligarchs and NeoLiberals suffer is hilarious.

But you know, sometimes I am inclined to agree with conjobs and libtards.

If people have nothing to do other than these stupid things...because there are no jobs available...such as

1) making TikTok videos hoping to go viral
2) selling the 2000th iteration of some product on Amazon and using "Creative Advertising" to work its magic
3) finding new grifts like how ANDREW TATE does - and let's be honest, Mr. Tate is an amazing salesman 

(For those of you who don't know Andrew Tate, he basically flipped the "toxic masculinity" narrative on its head and encourages gullible young men to impregnate as many women as possible...like the good 'ol ancient times where polygamy was around. Assuming, of course, they are capable of doing so considering most women these days are extremely picky and are just looking for a sugar daddy to shower them with material goods / a heavy consumption lifestyle)

4) (as you just posted) running around and sabotaging public property 

Then maybe that's a sign that the West is TOO prosperous.       

If I had to play Devils Advocate that's exactly what I would argue - that "Capitalism" has been so successful that many people can AFFORD to be structurally unemployed and yet still not starve to death.           

Pinging @Cannonpointer  ... does this summarize the current state of affairs? 

-------------------------

And I've ALSO been wondering - how come SOMEONE LIKE MYSELF, who is not a fan of capitalism, is doing a better job DEFENDING this system (in a debate / exchange of theory) than these IDIOTIC CONJOBS???!!! Conjobs just repeat the same trite talking points without ever RESPONDING to the allegations.

Fcking morons. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 12:16 pm

They're tied up dealing with ethnic cleansing/genocide.

Check your history of Palestinian terrorism...does the Munich Olympics ring a bell or the Entebbe Hijacking?

RebelGator » 26 Jul 2024, 7:47 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 7:47 pm

Check your history of Palestinian terrorism...does the Munich Olympics ring a bell or the Entebbe Hijacking?

The fact that you are enough of a nazi to defend genocide by going back to a time before the people being murdered were BORN is pretty pathetic, bubble boi.

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2024, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 7:57 pm

The fact that you are enough of a nazi to defend genocide by going back to a time before the people being murdered were BORN is pretty pathetic, bubble boi.

Not your best effort, you must be tired from drubbing mainedunce.   
 

RebelGator » 26 Jul 2024, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 8:00 pm

Not your best effort, you must be tired from drubbing mainedunce. 

Not your best effort, either. Entebbe, you ***?
 

LowIQTrash » 26 Jul 2024, 7:31 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 7:31 pm

But you know, sometimes I am inclined to agree with conjobs and libtards.

If people have nothing to do other than these stupid things...because there are no jobs available...such as

1) making TikTok videos hoping to go viral
2) selling the 2000th iteration of some product on Amazon and using "Creative Advertising" to work its magic
3) finding new grifts like how ANDREW TATE does - and let's be honest, Mr. Tate is an amazing salesman 

(For those of you who don't know Andrew Tate, he basically flipped the "toxic masculinity" narrative on its head and encourages gullible young men to impregnate as many women as possible...like the good 'ol ancient times where polygamy was around. Assuming, of course, they are capable of doing so considering most women these days are extremely picky and are just looking for a sugar daddy to shower them with material goods / a heavy consumption lifestyle)

4) (as you just posted) running around and sabotaging public property 

Then maybe that's a sign that the West is TOO prosperous.       

If I had to play Devils Advocate that's exactly what I would argue - that "Capitalism" has been so successful that many people can AFFORD to be structurally unemployed and yet still not starve to death.           

Pinging @Cannonpointer  ... does this summarize the current state of affairs? 

-------------------------

And I've ALSO been wondering - how come SOMEONE LIKE MYSELF, who is not a fan of capitalism, is doing a better job DEFENDING this system (in a debate / exchange of theory) than these IDIOTIC CONJOBS???!!! Conjobs just repeat the same trite talking points without ever RESPONDING to the allegations.

Fcking morons.

Dear sir, as I did with Vegas, I also wish to 'give you flowers' (a new urban terms my kids use) as
someone who has helped me in my evolution from a paleo-con/libertarian to some evolving flavor
of socialism.  Of course, CP and is so eloquent in these matters as well.

Also been watching many Joti Brar YT videos.  That hot chick is a beast on explaining
the diseases inherent in Capyism.  There are some ideas in CONism that I will likely
never cast away.  However, if a society allows the cannibalism of its lower/middle classes
then what good is the system?  CP likes to use the No Country For Old Men movie scene
to make the point...""if the rule you follow led you to this, then of what good is the rule".

LowIQTrash » 26 Jul 2024, 7:31 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 7:31 pm

If I had to play Devils Advocate that's exactly what I would argue - that "Capitalism" has been so successful that many people can AFFORD to be structurally unemployed and yet still not starve to death.         

I don't believe that capitalism is responsible for America's success. I believe that technology is. And I believe that technology flows from individual liberty, and from individualism itself, which is an inherited trait but also a learned cultural trait that we got from the savages who are our cultural forebears as much as are Europeans.

I believe that indoor plumbing is the single greatest achievement of humanity, bar none. The moon landing (if it happened) pales in comparison as regards VALUE. I believe that indoor plumbing has given us the leisure and the universal good health which are at the heart of the achievements in consumer wealth or whatever you want to measure America's prosperity by. And now capitalism is not just threatening that universal good health; it is actively murdering it with the assistance of the government gun which it has wrested from the control of citizens.

I Yuka-apped the wrapper of a convenience store hamburger recently, out of curiosity. I was flabbergasted. One of the ingredients - actually, the second listed - was "capsulated salt." I looked that up, and it's a sneaky legalism for hydrogenated oil. Hydrogenated oil digs the grooves in your arteries that homogenized dairy then clogs, necessitating a stent. The buns were made with a number of nasty things including fructose.

So, you have this wonderfully simple and intuitively trustworthy idea: a hamburger. And then you have this corporate sabotage. Capitalism has us paying it to poison us with things that will make us pay it forever, right up to our early graves.

It is often argued that capitalism has had a hand in our success as a nation. I strongly reject those arguments. I respect that there is evidence which some mistake as convincing. But that evidence is corollary in nature. The arguments for crediting capitalism are superstitious, linking things because they occur in the same time frame. And these ideas are installed in us by relentless propaganda and by collapsing the distinction free enterprise with the distinction capitalism. 

It is free enterprise that built the middle class, after FDR put a muzzle on that SAME rapacious capitalism that had brought the nation to the brink, through theft of public treasure, in the Great Depression. Mind you, capitalism was YOUNG when it caused all of that mayhem. It had only been deregulated for maybe 50 years when it nearly destroyed us. Before that, a mere municipality could take away a corporate charter, could outlaw the operation of any corporation that it chose to outlaw. Every corporation had an expiration date and a public good to cause within the timeframe granted it - just to GET a charter. And when FDR put a muzzle on the beast, America flourished. 

So, absolutely, no. I credit wall street capitalism only with destruction by rapacity - with parasitism. I credit free enterprise with 100% of America's success. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2024, 10:16 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 10:16 pm

I don't believe that capitalism is responsible for America's success. I believe that technology is. And I believe that technology flows from individual liberty, and from individualism itself, which is an inherited trait but also a learned cultural trait that we got from the savages who are our cultural forebears as much as are Europeans.

I believe that indoor plumbing is the single greatest achievement of humanity, bar none. The moon landing (if it happened) pales in comparison as regards VALUE. I believe that indoor plumbing has given us the leisure and the universal good health which are at the heart of the achievements in consumer wealth or whatever you want to measure America's prosperity by. And now capitalism is not just threatening that universal good health; it is actively murdering it with the assistance of the government gun which it has wrested from the control of citizens.

I Yuka-apped the wrapper of a convenience store hamburger recently, out of curiosity. I was flabbergasted. One of the ingredients - actually, the second listed - was "capsulated salt." I looked that up, and it's a sneaky legalism for hydrogenated oil. Hydrogenated oil digs the grooves in your arteries that homogenized dairy then clogs, necessitating a stent. The buns were made with a number of nasty things including fructose.

So, you have this wonderfully simple and intuitively trustworthy idea: a hamburger. And then you have this corporate sabotage. Capitalism has us paying it to poison us with things that will make us pay it forever, right up to our early graves.

It is often argued that capitalism has had a hand in our success as a nation. I strongly reject those arguments. I respect that there is evidence which some mistake as convincing. But that evidence is corollary in nature. The arguments for crediting capitalism are superstitious, linking things because they occur in the same time frame. And these ideas are installed in us by relentless propaganda and by collapsing the distinction free enterprise with the distinction capitalism. 

So, absolutely, no. I credit wall street capitalism only with destruction by rapacity - with parasitism. I credit free enterprise with 100% of America's success.

You have no idea how long I’ve been waiting to play Devil’s advocate.

As much as I would like to agree with you, here are the facts:

1) The US is one of the economically wealthiest countries today, measured using currency neutral indicators like PPP.

(I’m sure you caught the nuance, but for those who didn’t - the US is morally, spiritually, and ethically bankrupt but still doing economically well…for now)

2) The US has a capitalist system with moderate levels of free enterprise nestled within a larger, dominant corporatocracy. 

————————————

While I do not credit capitalism solely for these economic gains, I do not think excluding it is accurate.

Capitalism is about using investment monies to bolster the private sector (non-state owned and directed enterprises, incl. publicly traded corporations) and the US has indeed taken advantage of it to build - for example - its high tech industry, and, as much as you despise it, its high-end medical industry.

R&D (like ARPAnet) is a state expense designed to benefit capitalists, so I reject the economic illiteracy of libertarians that state investment is non- or even anti-capitalist.
 
(cont’d below)

As for your arguments…let me address them

1) “It’s technology, not capitalism”

The problem with this argument is that other countries also have access to this technology, and use this technology…yet most of them are not as prosperous. 

Consider that Silicon Valley and Wall Street, the embodiments of capitalism, are located HERE in the United States, one of THE most capitalist countries, and not in, say, China, Russia, or even Britain (also capitalist).

Admittedly the answer to your question is far more complicated than Termin8tor’s “Heritage FreeDUMB Index” considering Termin8tor FAILED to define “socialism” but - laugh all you want - it actually captures the idea more than you give it credit for. Termin8tor’s idiotic defense doesn’t preclude the possibility that Heritage was onto something.

Using my definition of capitalism, which is something like:

”An economic system where privately owned corporations and private investors dominate the economy and control its direction”

It’s not a surprise that the US remains one of the most attractive places for investors to pour money in….considering they can do almost whatever they want.

More investment money from borderless, global investors = higher likelihood of increased PPP as new markets can be created

More on this subject under point #4

2) “Capitalism predisposes the market to predatory practices, like inserting hydrogenated artery clogging oils into our food.”

I will have to reject this argument here…I’m pretty sure people were peddling PT Barnum “Sucker born every minute” style scams and Victor Lustig’s “free money printing box” cons since ancient times.

LONG before capitalism existed.

Remember that National Socialist poster from Unz whose content I like to repost from time to time? He says Jews have been running scams since the Bronze Age. Same with the CHINEE who use gutter oil to cook street food!

If it so happens that microplastics descend into men’s and boy’s testicles causing a fertility crisis, or hydrogenated oils are clogging our arteries because they’re cheaper than genuine olive oil / coconut oil (KEY WORD: GENUINE - I suspect the majority of olive oil brands are DILUTED with inferior seed oils), then I suppose one can blame capitalism for those ills.

On the other hand I don’t see how free enterprise would be a solution. Maybe National Socialism would work, where the State tightly regulates food production…but then you are no longer arguing in favor of free enterprise.

(Continued - Final)

3) “FDR restrained capitalism, which brought the country into the throes of the Great Depression”

Let me grant the premise of this argument, which is that capitalism is to blame for the Great Depression. It is a bit more complicated than that, but since the US was undoubtedly ON a capitalist frequency it is hard to deny culpability.

Does this mean you credit capitalism for the recovery as well? Remember, FDR simply put restraints on capitalism. He is, through and through, a snake FOR capitalism (your words). And as we know, the capitalist system did recover all its losses.

If it so happens that capitalism functions with greater stability including a welfare state, restraints on rent seeking parasites, and progressive taxation…then it simply means the capitalist system evolved over time and now is in its improved version.

Remember how @Zeets2  claimed San Francisco was SOSHALIZT because they were “giving free ****” to the homeless and poor?

My response is that a city which takes in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS every year in private housing investment monies CANNOT possibly be “socialist.” If SF WERE SOSHALIZT IT WOULD HAVE PUBLICLY OWNED HOUSING / co-ops! The avg SFer wouldn’t be dirt broke paying sky high rental costs to rent seeking capitalists!

(You may humiliate Zeets2 on your own time…which I am sure you will)

The proper response to your accusation here is that, thanks to CAPITALIST reformers like FDR, the system has undergone improvements. It does not mean “free enterprise” flourished in capitalism’s absence.

4) “Capitalism’s rise coincided with so many other positive factors that we cannot say capitalism caused [X Y Z]”

Thanks for bringing up this point. It’s one I’ve considered to be true, but recently changed my mind.

It does not make me a pro-capitalist; rather I am simply aiming for a neutral / objective description of reality.

For example I recall FOS saying it was whites’ ingenuity and creations, not capitalism, responsible for the astronomical rise in standard of living.

Here’s what I believe after assessing the situation: There are clearly many factors responsible for this explosion in SoL: discovery and use of hydrocarbons, the Scientific Era, industrialization, era of democracy / republicanism, whites residing on a continent where they are not constantly infighting, and more.

The question is whether capitalism gets any credit for this unwinding, watershed event.

The way I see it is: capitalism is a way of allocating / distributing society’s resources.

As my definition implies, private investors can pour money into enterprises with hopes of “rent seeking” and collecting monopoly profits or establishing some kind of oligopoly. Capitalism concentrates profits at the top because that’s how it’s designed to operate - wealthy people invest, wealthy people profit.

What this does is draw a lot of investors into the system, which increases the “overall size” of investment pool. And THAT alone merits a small degree of credit.

It is an unfortunate fact of life we can only have a few airlines, a few major oil producers, a few car brands, a few railroads. etc. because the barriers to entry are far too great for any small entrepreneur to undertake.

So while capitalism is an inferior arrangement to a system like NS, “free enterprise” is not a suitable alternative. The trick is to recognize that capitalism draws in the investors and the State can choose to limit what investors can do / how much they can squeeze the Golden Goose. 

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

(Continued - Final)

3) “FDR restrained capitalism, which brought the country into the throes of the Great Depression”

Let me grant the premise of this argument, which is that capitalism is to blame for the Great Depression. It is a bit more complicated than that, but since the US was undoubtedly ON a capitalist frequency it is hard to deny culpability.

Does this mean you credit capitalism for the recovery as well? Remember, FDR simply put restraints on capitalism. He is, through and through, a snake FOR capitalism (your words). And as we know, the capitalist system did recover all its losses.

If it so happens that capitalism functions with greater stability including a welfare state, restraints on rent seeking parasites, and progressive taxation…then it simply means the capitalist system evolved over time and now is in its improved version.

Remember how @Zeets2  claimed San Francisco was SOSHALIZT because they were “giving free ****” to the homeless and poor?

My response is that a city which takes in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS every year in private housing investment monies CANNOT possibly be “socialist.” If SF WERE SOSHALIZT IT WOULD HAVE PUBLICLY OWNED HOUSING / co-ops! The avg SFer wouldn’t be dirt broke paying sky high rental costs to rent seeking capitalists!

(You may humiliate Zeets2 on your own time…which I am sure you will)

The proper response to your accusation here is that, thanks to CAPITALIST reformers like FDR, the system has undergone improvements. It does not mean “free enterprise” flourished in capitalism’s absence.

4) “Capitalism’s rise coincided with so many other positive factors that we cannot say capitalism caused [X Y Z]”

Thanks for bringing up this point. It’s one I’ve considered to be true, but recently changed my mind.

It does not make me a pro-capitalist; rather I am simply aiming for a neutral / objective description of reality.

For example I recall FOS saying it was whites’ ingenuity and creations, not capitalism, responsible for the astronomical rise in standard of living.

Here’s what I believe after assessing the situation: There are clearly many factors responsible for this explosion in SoL: discovery and use of hydrocarbons, the Scientific Era, industrialization, era of democracy / republicanism, whites residing on a continent where they are not constantly infighting, and more.

The question is whether capitalism gets any credit for this unwinding, watershed event.

The way I see it is: capitalism is a way of allocating / distributing society’s resources.

As my definition implies, private investors can pour money into enterprises with hopes of “rent seeking” and collecting monopoly profits or establishing some kind of oligopoly. Capitalism concentrates profits at the top because that’s how it’s designed to operate - wealthy people invest, wealthy people profit.

What this does is draw a lot of investors into the system, which increases the “overall size” of investment pool. And THAT alone merits a small degree of credit.

It is an unfortunate fact of life we can only have a few airlines, a few major oil producers, a few car brands, a few railroads. etc. because the barriers to entry are far too great for any small entrepreneur to undertake.

So while capitalism is an inferior arrangement to a system like NS, “free enterprise” is not a suitable alternative. The trick is to recognize that capitalism draws in the investors and the State can choose to limit what investors can do / how much they can squeeze the Golden Goose.

Whatever you choose to call a city or state is irrelevant.
It's the POLICIES that are socialist, from the open border to staunchly operating as both a sanctuary city and state with the highest taxes in the country and the most regulated state in the country that make San Francisco a socialist's dream come true.
Care to deny that?
 

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 3:39 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 3:39 am

You have no idea how long I’ve been waiting to play Devil’s advocate.

As much as I would like to agree with you, here are the facts:

1) The US is one of the economically wealthiest countries today, measured using currency neutral indicators like PPP.

(I’m sure you caught the nuance, but for those who didn’t - the US is morally, spiritually, and ethically bankrupt but still doing economically well…for now)

2) The US has a capitalist system with moderate levels of free enterprise nestled within a larger, dominant corporatocracy. 

————————————

While I do not credit capitalism solely for these economic gains, I do not think excluding it is accurate.

Capitalism is about using investment monies to bolster the private sector (non-state owned and directed enterprises, incl. publicly traded corporations) and the US has indeed taken advantage of it to build - for example - its high tech industry, and, as much as you despise it, its high-end medical industry.

R&D (like ARPAnet) is a state expense designed to benefit capitalists, so I reject the economic illiteracy of libertarians that state investment is non- or even anti-capitalist.
 
(cont’d below)

It sounds like militarism gets the credit over capitalism. And when the state pays for R&D, is that still capitalism, or is it now socialism? And if it is socialism, don't the taxpayers - and not capitalism - get the credit?
 

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am

As for your arguments…let me address them

1) “It’s technology, not capitalism”

The problem with this argument is that other countries also have access to this technology, and use this technology…yet most of them are not as prosperous.

Secondary access to the technology. Drivers in the developing world drive like ****. Drivers in the US have grandparents who rode in cars as children. Developing nation drivers remember a time in THEIR lifetime when a car was a rare commodity. Our grandparents grew up driving, and watching drivers.

The same thing goes for indoor plumbing.

You're pointing out that people WAY late to the gate are behind as if it is some credit to the runner who is ahead.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am

Consider that Silicon Valley and Wall Street, the embodiments of capitalism, are located HERE in the United States, one of THE most capitalist countries, and not in, say, China, Russia, or even Britain (also capitalist).

Caucasians have an extremely high tendency to have both high intelligence and high creativity - and American caucasians have historically had the highest level of individualism/creativity. These things attract investment. Crediting capitalism ignores this. Race has to be accounted for - not just the economic system. A great many non-capitalist nations attract investment - just in resources other than human. It could be that ours attracts investment in human resources, because our people are natively smarter and more creative - not because capitalism.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am

Admittedly the answer to your question is far more complicated than Termin8tor’s “Heritage FreeDUMB Index” considering Termin8tor FAILED to define “socialism” but - laugh all you want - it actually captures the idea more than you give it credit for. Termin8tor’s idiotic defense doesn’t preclude the possibility that Heritage was onto something.

Whatever you wish to discourage, tax. It works every time. Whatever you wish to encourage, stop taxing.

So, yeah. No kidding. Heritage is onto something. We stopped taxing billionaires and got more billionaires. I never didn't credit capitalism with parasitic billionaires.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am

Using my definition of capitalism, which is something like:

”An economic system where privately owned corporations and private investors dominate the economy and control its direction”

I would complete your definition thusly: with the active assistance of government's entire policing apparatus, including its military.

Only then have we adequately defined it.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am

It’s not a surprise that the US remains one of the most attractive places for investors to pour money in….considering they can do almost whatever they want.

More investment money from borderless, global investors = higher likelihood of increased PPP as new markets can be created

More on this subject under point #4

I am not seeing this as a defense of capitalism. Especially in light of the fact that it is poisoning our food supply and destroying the people's health. Higher PPP does not mollify me nor justify that. You have not proved the implied argument that the US being capitalist is the reason the US attracts investors. You have not argued that those investors would dry up, but for the existence of capitalism. Univariant analyses rarely render high integrity results. "We are capitalist; we attract investors" is more a recitation of observed reality than any sort of argument about how observed reality functions. You've related these facts far more casually than causally. 
 
 

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am

2) “Capitalism predisposes the market to predatory practices, like inserting hydrogenated artery clogging oils into our food.”

I will have to reject this argument here…I’m pretty sure people were peddling PT Barnum “Sucker born every minute” style scams and Victor Lustig’s “free money printing box” cons since ancient times.

LONG before capitalism existed.

The fact that dishonesty precedes capitalism is hardly evidence against my argument. It is not at all necessary to poison the burger. A healthy burger will sell to the same market consuming the poisoned one. It's a choice made by the capitalists, to drum up business for their medical stranglehold. That institutional criminality, sanctioned by law, compares to a short con in no way that I can discern.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:13 am

Remember that National Socialist poster from Unz whose content I like to repost from time to time? He says Jews have been running scams since the Bronze Age. Same with the CHINEE who use gutter oil to cook street food!

If it so happens that microplastics descend into men’s and boy’s testicles causing a fertility crisis, or hydrogenated oils are clogging our arteries because they’re cheaper than genuine olive oil / coconut oil (KEY WORD: GENUINE - I suspect the majority of olive oil brands are DILUTED with inferior seed oils), then I suppose one can blame capitalism for those ills.

On the other hand I don’t see how free enterprise would be a solution. Maybe National Socialism would work, where the State tightly regulates food production…but then you are no longer arguing in favor of free enterprise.

This question takes a bit of unpacking, because there are embedded issues that the question brushes right past. The biggest question is what the state of knowledge might be around health if knowledge around health were not being suppressed and even outlawed by capitalism - if it were not suppressed through white noise and propaganda intended to equate the use of pharmaceuticals with good health; if it were not geared to attack our health in order to create a market for it's pills and procedures.

Then, too, the government would not be running interference for the free enterpriser,. I do not believe that the poisoner would be as immune to consequences when exposed.

There are plenty of people in today's capitalist system who read that label and eschew that poison. But that is all they can do about it. In a free enterprise system, I believe they could make a big enough stink to shut that operator down for poisoning his customers. On top of that, in a free enterprise system, without wall street's lobbyists quite literally writing our laws, there is certainly a question whether these ingredients might be outlawed.

There are just way too many mangoes and kiwis in the mix to make any sort of apples to apples argument or comparison - way too many unknowns. What IS known is that giving us these poisons in a capitalist system pays dividends by helping the med-pharm business model. And that motive is extremely unlikely to exist in a free enterprise system. It is certainly possible that other motives would still exist - the chinaman using gutter oil isn't in bed with the local shaman (I assume the chinee use shamans, as they are savages). But at least these motives would not be institutional in nature, and they could be overcome through regulation.
 
 
 

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

(Continued - Final)

3) “FDR restrained capitalism, which brought the country into the throes of the Great Depression”

Let me grant the premise of this argument, which is that capitalism is to blame for the Great Depression. It is a bit more complicated than that, but since the US was undoubtedly ON a capitalist frequency it is hard to deny culpability.

Yeah, well wall street crashed the economy. That's about the size of it. The equivalent in today's money of trillions disappeared.

I haven't heard where they went - maybe Houdini got them.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

Does this mean you credit capitalism for the recovery as well? Remember, FDR simply put restraints on capitalism. He is, through and through, a snake FOR capitalism (your words). And as we know, the capitalist system did recover all its losses.

I believe that socialism was more to be credited. But here, we start counting the angels that can fit on the head of a pin. We start looking to distinguish WHAT IS SOCIALISM. Lol.

But let's just look at what he did. He built stuff, on public credit, using private labor and a good bit of private equipment. The stuff he built was useful, and still benefits society today. That is what brought us out of the depression, I believe. I prefer hitler's method, which was objectively superior. But his method worked.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

If it so happens that capitalism functions with greater stability including a welfare state, restraints on rent seeking parasites, and progressive taxation…then it simply means the capitalist system evolved over time and now is in its improved version.

Well, no, because FDR's game rules which built the middle class and made america great again were repudiated and scrapped by reagan and all who followed.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

Remember how @Zeets2  claimed San Francisco was SOSHALIZT because they were “giving free ****” to the homeless and poor?

My response is that a city which takes in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS every year in private housing investment monies CANNOT possibly be “socialist.” If SF WERE SOSHALIZT IT WOULD HAVE PUBLICLY OWNED HOUSING / co-ops! The avg SFer wouldn’t be dirt broke paying sky high rental costs to rent seeking capitalists!

(You may humiliate Zeets2 on your own time…which I am sure you will)

The proper response to your accusation here is that, thanks to CAPITALIST reformers like FDR, the system has undergone improvements. It does not mean “free enterprise” flourished in capitalism’s absence.

Well, but it did, actually. I grew up on a blacktop road in a **** part of a dirty little industrial town. On my block, there were an owner/operator of a sixteen wheeler, an owner/operator of a bulldozer, a home-based tree service, a home-based upholstery business, and a home-based pest control service. There may have been other business owners I was unaware of as a child.

There were foundry workers, to be sure; there were factory workers and nursery workers and other hirelings. But there were plenty of business owners with just a high school diploma. These were the people who created jobs and drove the economy. And under FDR's game rules, they did indeed flourish. 
 
 

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

4) “Capitalism’s rise coincided with so many other positive factors that we cannot say capitalism caused [X Y Z]”

...

The way I see it is: capitalism is a way of allocating / distributing society’s resources.

Okay. We're off to a good start on this one, as I see it the same way.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

As my definition implies, private investors can pour money into enterprises with hopes of “rent seeking” and collecting monopoly profits or establishing some kind of oligopoly. Capitalism concentrates profits at the top because that’s how it’s designed to operate - wealthy people invest, wealthy people profit.

What this does is draw a lot of investors into the system, which increases the “overall size” of investment pool. And THAT alone merits a small degree of credit.

In a system that concentrates wealth at the top, the size of the investment pool is hardly a justification, unless you are at the top.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

It is an unfortunate fact of life we can only have a few airlines, a few major oil producers, a few car brands, a few railroads. etc. because the barriers to entry are far too great for any small entrepreneur to undertake.

THESE barriers to entry are quite natural and understandable, though. They are not the fault of capitalism. Nor are they too great to be overcome within a free enterprise model. Free enterprisers are perfectly capable of generating investment monies. Speculators still like to speculate. Capital still exists and still seeks investment opportunities.

The artificial barriers to entry in industries that do and don't require a hundred million in startup costs are the problem.

LowIQTrash » 27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 4:31 am

So while capitalism is an inferior arrangement to a system like NS, “free enterprise” is not a suitable alternative. The trick is to recognize that capitalism draws in the investors and the State can choose to limit what investors can do / how much they can squeeze the Golden Goose.

I see no evidence you have presented or argument you have made suggesting that free enterprise would not attract investors. It seems an unexamined assumption.

Free enterprise can scale without the money pile that wall street affords. Pizza Hut was at scale before it went public. So was Dominos. So was Coca Cola. American Express was founded in 1850. It went public more than a hundred twenty years later in the 1970s. Texas Instruments started in 1930 and was at scale before it ever went public 23 years later.

None of those massive, nationwide companies, built and operated within a free enterprise system, required capitalism to scale. There are dozens of other examples. So the assumption that a free enterprise economy would not attract investors has no basis that I can see your having argued. Hell, communist china OUTLAWED capitalism and still attracted investors. There were people investing in China before the Yuan was fungible on the international market. There are investors pouring money into subsaharan africa, where the economic game rules aren't even discernable. Why in the world would investors run from a well-managed, peaceful-and-predictable free enterprise market regulated by a legal system derived from business-friendly English Common Law?
 
 

Sumela » 26 Jul 2024, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2024, 11:23 am

Millions stranded from a terrorist act.  The Olympics are frozen.  Massive West failure.  Again.

Plus.
  
Rampant crime.
Rampant vandalism.
Tent cities everywhere.
Homeless and addicts harassing visitors.
Diseased LGBTQ taken over the ceremonies.

It could not happen to a more deserved...... *** and trannied .....country.    

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/va ... 024-07-26/

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240726/paris ... 16676.html

https://apnews.com/article/france-train ... 8e45cb874f

Wanna bet that RUSSIA is involved in any terrorism... RIGHT UP t their EYEBALLS?

Well, I'm hearing that Russians are FALLING ALL OVER themselves trying to get out of Crimea because of Ukrainian attacks... and there are RIOTS in Russia because of the war... so trying to cause problems for the HOST NATO country is probably to be expected...BUT, it sounds like Russia might be on their last legs...

ConservativeWave » 28 Jul 2024, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2024, 1:26 pm

Wanna bet that RUSSIA is involved in any terrorism... RIGHT UP t their EYEBALLS?

Well, I'm hearing that Russians are FALLING ALL OVER themselves trying to get out of Crimea because of Ukrainian attacks... and there are RIOTS in Russia because of the war... so trying to cause problems for the HOST NATO country is probably to be expected...BUT, it sounds like Russia might be on their last legs...

Last legs?  The Tranny States of ***?  
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Jul 2024, 12:27 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2024, 12:27 am

It sounds like militarism gets the credit over capitalism. And when the state pays for R&D, is that still capitalism, or is it now socialism? And if it is socialism, don't the taxpayers - and not capitalism - get the credit?

Every state with a functioning economy pays for R&D. What matters is whether the state or some private cartel (Wall Street, globalist investors, Silicon Valley, the Robber Barons who controlled oil and rail) runs the economy. Since we have an active revolving door between these criminal orgs and GUBMINT it is safe to conclude we do not have SoshaliZm

National socialism can be categorized under “socialism” because even though industry leaders are private corps / individuals, they answer to the state. If Hitler tells you to raise wages by 25% you’d better do it or else…