New York City

[LouderVol]

???

Taxes and standards, etc. are not socialist or anti capitalist.

Socialism is government ownership and capitalism is private ownership. Taxes, regulations, bartering, etc. all exist in both systems.

how are taxes and standards not anti-capitalist?

capitalism​

noun​

cap·i·tal·ism ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm
ˈkap-tə-

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Definition of CAPITALISM

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

the differences in socialism and capitalism goes beyond ownership.

just like we have never been a democracy, we have never been mostly capitalistic.

the more government is involved the less capitalistic we are, and the more socialist we are.

 

[LouderVol]

Capitalism doesn't mean fair markets and free trade. It means private ownership.

lol no it doesn't.

capitalism is an economic theory, and it certainly isn't solely defined by ownership rights.

 

[n_huffhines]

how are taxes and standards not anti-capitalist?

capitalism​

noun​

cap·i·tal·ism ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm
ˈkap-tə-

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Definition of CAPITALISM

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

the differences in socialism and capitalism goes beyond ownership.

just like we have never been a democracy, we have never been mostly capitalistic.

the more government is involved the less capitalistic we are, and the more socialist we are.

Nowhere does that definition say or even begin to imply that taxes and standards are anti-capitalism. It does say "mainly by competition in a free market." There will never be a national economic system of pure capitalism, and this is the same as socialists saying pure socialism has never been tried.

I agree that a more capitalist economy will have less market interference, but it's not anti-capitalist to interfere in the market. A strict, bare bones economic definition of capitalism would be private ownership + production centered around profit. That's why the term crony capitalism exists. It's not an oxymoron. It's a form of capitalism (and it is the kind we have).

 

[LouderVol]

Nowhere does that definition say or even begin to imply that taxes and standards are anti-capitalism. It does say "mainly by competition in a free market." There will never be a national economic system of pure capitalism, and this is the same as socialists saying pure socialism has never been tried.

I agree that a more capitalist economy will have less market interference, but it's not anti-capitalist to interfere in the market. A strict, bare bones economic definition of capitalism would be private ownership + production centered around profit. That's why the term crony capitalism exists. It's not an oxymoron. It's a form of capitalism (and it is the kind we have).

I never went the absolutist route, either way. The Keynesian model most people use to describe our economy relies on government interference.

capitalism relies on downturns, recessions, and depressions to equal out the market. our government is designed to make sure that doesn't happen.

we have a centralized (government) bank whose stated purpose is to interfere in the economy by adjusting interest rates to manipulate the economy. if you don't see how the Feds rate manipulations isn't a major driver in prices in our economy, I don't know what to tell you. certainly its enough on its own to put the lie to "mainly competition". and there are more government forms.

next biggest would be the impact of regulations. in my field, construction, its anywhere from 25% to 40% of the price the end user pays is due to government regulations. if you want to split hairs and say that alone isn't enough because its not 50%, then fine. but you add up the pieces and you get an economy where competition isn't the main driver.

Loading…

www.nmhc.org

the amount that government involvement impacts the prices we see as consumers is so imbedded that most people don't realize it.

 

[n_huffhines]

I never went the absolutist route, either way. The Keynesian model most people use to describe our economy relies on government interference.

capitalism relies on downturns, recessions, and depressions to equal out the market. our government is designed to make sure that doesn't happen.

we have a centralized (government) bank whose stated purpose is to interfere in the economy by adjusting interest rates to manipulate the economy. if you don't see how the Feds rate manipulations isn't a major driver in prices in our economy, I don't know what to tell you. certainly its enough on its own to put the lie to "mainly competition". and there are more government forms.

next biggest would be the impact of regulations. in my field, construction, its anywhere from 25% to 40% of the price the end user pays is due to government regulations. if you want to split hairs and say that alone isn't enough because its not 50%, then fine. but you add up the pieces and you get an economy where competition isn't the main driver.

Loading…

www.nmhc.org

the amount that government involvement impacts the prices we see as consumers is so imbedded that most people don't realize it.

Would it be anti-capitalist to interfere in the market and punish proven frauds?

 

[LouderVol]

Would it be anti-capitalist to interfere in the market and punish proven frauds?

that's a debate I tried to have here previously, and never got anyone to bite. I am not sure is the answer.

on one side, someone (could be the government) policing the bad actors would be interference; but if it maintains a freer/fairer market then policing would be justified under a "capitalist" economy.

the issue with where you are trying to take this argument, is that is not what most of our government regulation, and involvement covers. and even where it does punish the fraudulent or other harmful actors, it does it in a way that punishes the rest of the free market regardless of anyone else being fraudulent.

if it only went out after bad actors who exploited an otherwise free market, I wouldn't have much of a distinction to make on how that fits into the capitalism vs socialism argument.

 

[n_huffhines]

that's a debate I tried to have here previously, and never got anyone to bite. I am not sure is the answer.

on one side, someone (could be the government) policing the bad actors would be interference; but if it maintains a freer/fairer market then policing would be justified under a "capitalist" economy.

the issue with where you are trying to take this argument, is that is not what most of our government regulation, and involvement covers. and even where it does punish the fraudulent or other harmful actors, it does it in a way that punishes the rest of the free market regardless of anyone else being fraudulent.

if it only went out after bad actors who exploited an otherwise free market, I wouldn't have much of a distinction to make on how that fits into the capitalism vs socialism argument.

I would say that if you believe in a strict, no intervention version of capitalism then it only implies protection from theft and violence, not a trading partner who misrepresents the truth....because now we're getting into gray areas where we get into subjective notions of fairness, and now we're intervening in all kinds of ways (because capitalism doesn't actually mean "no intervervention")

 

[luthervol]

again, the only thing that makes the 3rd party candidate non-viable, or whoever you voted for in the Primary, is that you won't vote for them.

that's it. just vote for them.

That I won't vote for them.....or that enough people will not vote for them?
If the primary election is already decided by the time GA votes, I use my vote to send the message I most want to send.

its a 50/50 chance you are going to "waste" your vote on the loser anyway. so why not just vote the way you actually want?

I always vote the way I actually want. But I am rarely happy with the choices.

again, you are hypocritical to the extreme. you expect other people to vote for the third party candidate, before you will. you admit that the people you vote for in the general election, aren't your preferred; but you refuse to vote for those that you do.

I don't want anybody to vote for a third party candidate unless that is what they view as best......unless of course, their vote otherwise would have gone to the most viable candidate I want to loose (like a trump)

its not even "breaking" the system, to vote for a non-two party option. its literally a built in function, that people refuse to use; and then complain that others don't use it as well.

I don't refuse to use it. I also would rarely waste a vote on it.

I can see how people in a non-competitive state could justify a vote for someone who has no chance.

Hell, If I lived in TN I would have certainly voted for someone who had no chance.

 

[LouderVol]

I would say that if you believe in a strict, no intervention version of capitalism then it only implies protection from theft and violence, not a trading partner who misrepresents the truth....because now we're getting into gray areas where we get into subjective notions of fairness, and now we're intervening in all kinds of ways (because capitalism doesn't actually mean "no intervervention")

I believe that that is what capitalism is. I have never said that is what we should live under. my economic take would probably be pretty similar to my political take where I call myself a Constitutional Libertarian.

my preferred economy would be mostly Capitalistic, with government control limited to protecting people from harm, while making sure informed consent is upheld.

in the case of a fraudster it comes down to what type of fraud we have going on. because a lot of that is just stealing by another name. so the government can intervene. but if Company X wants to sell a product with cyanide in it, and clearly lists cyanide in it, they should be allowed to. at some point the individual is responsible for knowing what they are putting into their own body. and when Company X bankrupts because people figured out that the listed cyanide is bad for them, the government just lets Company X fail, no bailout, no subsidy.

 

[LouderVol]

That I won't vote for them.....or that enough people will not vote for them?
If the primary election is already decided by the time GA votes, I use my vote to send the message I most want to send.

I always vote the way I actually want. But I am rarely happy with the choices.

I don't want anybody to vote for a third party candidate unless that is what they view as best......unless of course, their vote otherwise would have gone to the most viable candidate I want to loose (like a trump)

I don't refuse to use it. I also would rarely waste a vote on it.

I can see how people in a non-competitive state could justify a vote for someone who has no chance.

Hell, If I lived in TN I would have certainly voted for someone who had no chance.

what about in a state that splits its votes based on the percentages each candidate wins? I think Nebraska and Maine are the only ones. would you still consider it a waste of votes to not vote for one of the top two names?

but to your question, yes you individually. because guess what? Individuals are the only ones who vote. well unless you are a Dem, and then super delegates. but again if you were honest you would have larger problems than just the "viability" of the candidate. if enough you's stop worrying about the popular vote and instead focus on what you believe the problem fixes itself.

the viable argument is an imaginary problem the parties made up, and largely self defeating. there is only ever 1 viable candidate, the one who wins. every other vote not for the winner was wasted. it doesn't count to anything. it doesn't do anything. Trump isn't any different today because kamala got whatever 70 million votes she got. whether its your one vote, or 20 million others, Trump is still Trump. you wasted your vote on a non-viable candidate. its how our elections have always worked.

the parties make you believe that because you participated in their candidate selection that you changed something. you didn't. its the exact same "waste" as voting for the third party option you claimed you actually want.

 

[MAD]

Beirut was once known as the Paris of the Middle East.

America is going in the same direction as Lebanon.




Brigitte Gabriel who immigrated from Lebanon to America says America is going through the exact same path Lebanon did while being taken over by an Islamic government

“We are seeing today the transformation of our culture and our society, and this is a cultural war. This is an Islamic invasion and subjugation. Look, I come from Lebanon, which is now majority Muslim country. We did not start that way. When I was born, in my lifetime, Lebanon went from majority Christian country to today a majority Islamic country. How did that happen? Subjugation.

And by the way, even in a majority Muslim country in the Middle East right now, whether you go to Jordan or Egypt or Lebanon and Syria, you do not see people shutting down the street to pray. You do not see people praying in the public square. People who wanna pray go to mosque. They don't do this.

But we are seeing this in Western nation because this is a symbol of power. They are sending a message. ‘We will conquer you. We will control you. We will dominate you. We will win election and do it democratically.’

And at the end of the day, it may not happen today, may not happen 10 years from now, but 50 years from now, America will look like Londonistan, and and New York is being transformed.“


The useful idiots will discredit the person who is from Lebanon like they always do. That’s their defense.

 

[luthervol]

what about in a state that splits its votes based on the percentages each candidate wins? I think Nebraska and Maine are the only ones. would you still consider it a waste of votes to not vote for one of the top two names?

That's a decision each individual must make. If a person viewed the 2 candidates as similarly repulsive, I would not view it as a waste.
If one was far more repulsive than the other, I would view it as a complete waste.
It would be on a continuum.

if enough you's stop worrying about the popular vote and instead focus on what you believe the problem fixes itself.

lol.....I wish more me's would take my approach. We would make drastic improvements almost immediately.

the viable argument is an imaginary problem the parties made up, and largely self defeating. there is only ever 1 viable candidate, the one who wins. every other vote not for the winner was wasted. it doesn't count to anything. it doesn't do anything. Trump isn't any different today because kamala got whatever 70 million votes she got. whether its your one vote, or 20 million others, Trump is still Trump. you wasted your vote on a non-viable candidate. its how our elections have always worked.

the parties make you believe that because you participated in their candidate selection that you changed something. you didn't. its the exact same "waste" as voting for the third party option you claimed you actually want.

Again, we simply disagree.

 

[LouderVol]

That's a decision each individual must make. If a person viewed the 2 candidates as similarly repulsive, I would not view it as a waste.
If one was far more repulsive than the other, I would view it as a complete waste.
It would be on a continuum.

lol.....I wish more me's would take my approach. We would make drastic improvements almost immediately.

Again, we simply disagree.

explain why you disagree?

how was your vote for Kamala any less wasted than a vote for Cornell West?

 

[LSU-SIU]

explain why you disagree?

how was your vote for Kamala any less wasted than a vote for Cornell West?

Mr. Chicken is happy telling everyone they are Hitler supporters for voting for the lying cheating Orange man as he goes on to vote for liars, murderers, treasonous people, etc.

He is definitely one Chicken that has it all figured out.

 

[luthervol]

explain why you disagree?

how was your vote for Kamala any less wasted than a vote for Cornell West?

Truthfully, if you need an explanation, no explanation will suffice.

But basically......Kamala had a chance in GA........West obviously did not.

 

[LouderVol]

Truthfully, if you need an explanation, no explanation will suffice.

But basically......Kamala had a chance in GA........West obviously did not.

she had a chance because people voted for her. those same people could have voted for West. it wouldn't have taken any more effort. literally every single Kamala voter could have voted for West and achieved the same result.

and what's worse, is in this particular case, Kamala was appointed. she wasn't even "viable" in her own party, except that the party said she was. that is literally it, the Dems crowned her viable after no votes for her. Viable is that meaningless.

 

[n_huffhines]

I believe that that is what capitalism is. I have never said that is what we should live under. my economic take would probably be pretty similar to my political take where I call myself a Constitutional Libertarian.

my preferred economy would be mostly Capitalistic, with government control limited to protecting people from harm, while making sure informed consent is upheld.

in the case of a fraudster it comes down to what type of fraud we have going on. because a lot of that is just stealing by another name. so the government can intervene. but if Company X wants to sell a product with cyanide in it, and clearly lists cyanide in it, they should be allowed to. at some point the individual is responsible for knowing what they are putting into their own body. and when Company X bankrupts because people figured out that the listed cyanide is bad for them, the government just lets Company X fail, no bailout, no subsidy.

We're basically in agreement over ideas and what works best, but I do think the semantics on this matter. I'm not calling you out or saying you are part of the problem, but both sides tend to reduce either socialism or capitalism to only good/bad things. Capitalism is just greed and legalized theft, for example.

I'll pick on conservatives with this example:

Most conservatives like the public school system, but the government has a monopoly on the means of production here, a clear example of socialism. This never gets grouped in with socialist ideas, because socialism is bad and public school is good. However, welfare is bad, so it gets grouped as a socialist idea when that's not really what socialism is.

Just seems like there is so much misuse of terms, probably starting with talking heads, and it's confused the conversation.

 

[luthervol]

she had a chance because people voted for her. those same people could have voted for West. it wouldn't have taken any more effort. literally every single Kamala voter could have voted for West and achieved the same result.

and what's worse, is in this particular case, Kamala was appointed. she wasn't even "viable" in her own party, except that the party said she was. that is literally it, the Dems crowned her viable after no votes for her. Viable is that meaningless.

The sun rises in the east.
Water is wet.
trump won because people voted for him.
had people who disliked trump voted third party, he would not be president.

 

[EasternVol]

Communism certainly would mean automatic further erosion of freedom.

Socialism, depending on the depth and extent would not necessarily mean further erosion.

I don't know. What about communism automatically suppresses freedom? Past precedence says it's autocratic but is that because of some innate mechanism or because it was implemented by people who wanted absolute power? Fascism a la mid-20th century Europe and Corporatism and Militarism in late 20th century Singapore and Indonesia were capitalist and dictatorial. Does that mean all capitalist systems are dictatorships?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I don't know. What about communism automatically suppresses freedom? Past precedence says it's autocratic but is that because of some innate mechanism or because it was implemented by people who wanted absolute power? Fascism a la mid-20th century Europe and Corporatism and Militarism in late 20th century Singapore and Indonesia were capitalist and dictatorial. Does that mean all capitalist systems are dictatorships?

The innate mechanism is human nature. Those on top don't want to live like the Proletariat. They don't want their entire family in a studio apartment.

 

[EasternVol]

if it interferes with fair markets or free trade its not capitalistic. taxes, government standards, etc. its irrelevant if its always existed, or everyone does it, those are just deflections.

and considering it comes from the government, its socialistic.

I never said those subsidies and others were "controlling the means of production", just that they were socialistic. Regardless, controlling the means of production would be communism.

socialism doesn't require controlling the means of production. socialism still counts if its old, or prevalent.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. In capitalism the means of production are privately owned. Private property exists under both. With pure communism everything is owned by the 'people' which means the state.
Welfare programs don't indicate socialism no matter how much the John Birchers want to say they do.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Beirut was once known as the Paris of the Middle East.

America is going in the same direction as Lebanon.




Brigitte Gabriel who immigrated from Lebanon to America says America is going through the exact same path Lebanon did while being taken over by an Islamic government

“We are seeing today the transformation of our culture and our society, and this is a cultural war. This is an Islamic invasion and subjugation. Look, I come from Lebanon, which is now majority Muslim country. We did not start that way. When I was born, in my lifetime, Lebanon went from majority Christian country to today a majority Islamic country. How did that happen? Subjugation.

And by the way, even in a majority Muslim country in the Middle East right now, whether you go to Jordan or Egypt or Lebanon and Syria, you do not see people shutting down the street to pray. You do not see people praying in the public square. People who wanna pray go to mosque. They don't do this.

But we are seeing this in Western nation because this is a symbol of power. They are sending a message. ‘We will conquer you. We will control you. We will dominate you. We will win election and do it democratically.’

And at the end of the day, it may not happen today, may not happen 10 years from now, but 50 years from now, America will look like Londonistan, and and New York is being transformed.“


The useful idiots will discredit the person who is from Lebanon like they always do. That’s their defense.

And now Paris is the Beirut of Europe.

 

[MAD]

And now Paris is the Beirut of Europe.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[EasternVol]

Beirut was once known as the Paris of the Middle East.

America is going in the same direction as Lebanon.




Brigitte Gabriel who immigrated from Lebanon to America says America is going through the exact same path Lebanon did while being taken over by an Islamic government

“We are seeing today the transformation of our culture and our society, and this is a cultural war. This is an Islamic invasion and subjugation. Look, I come from Lebanon, which is now majority Muslim country. We did not start that way. When I was born, in my lifetime, Lebanon went from majority Christian country to today a majority Islamic country. How did that happen? Subjugation.

And by the way, even in a majority Muslim country in the Middle East right now, whether you go to Jordan or Egypt or Lebanon and Syria, you do not see people shutting down the street to pray. You do not see people praying in the public square. People who wanna pray go to mosque. They don't do this.

But we are seeing this in Western nation because this is a symbol of power. They are sending a message. ‘We will conquer you. We will control you. We will dominate you. We will win election and do it democratically.’

And at the end of the day, it may not happen today, may not happen 10 years from now, but 50 years from now, America will look like Londonistan, and and New York is being transformed.“


The useful idiots will discredit the person who is from Lebanon like they always do. That’s their defense.

Be careful or you'll shoot yourself in the foot. A lot of Lebanon's problems were caused or worsened by their southern neighbor's destabilization efforts as part of their empire building.
BTW Ms. Gabriel's a well known professional snake oil dealer so she's much more concerned with stirring shyte than she is with truth.