Post: #151

(08-11-2015 09:52 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  The Hobbesian does a great job of dissecting the myth of the "corporatism is not capitalism" mantra.

Quote:This laughable cluelessness is no more apparent than in the common argument I hear that America is somehow “Corporatist” and not Capitalist. I constantly hear comparisons between “true capitalism” and “corporatism” and how in a “true free market” we would not see the powerful corporations that seem to exist in our present economy. They try to say that corporations as legal entities are the product of legislation, thus if you removed the government corporations would go away as well. This of course is nonsense, Corporations exist for a reason, they are found in every economic model on earth from laissez faire to Stalinist Communism. These clowns need an economics lesson to understand why corporations exist, and why they would most certainly be found in anarcho-capitalism and laissez faire.

Corporations exist for the purpose of pooling risk and pooling resources. The first modern corporations emerged in the Netherlands in early modern era. As the Age of Discovery unfolded, entrepreneurs saw opportunity in the vast trade networks that opened up in places like the Americas, Africa and Asia. Demand for fur, tobacco, guns, spices and slaves created an international trade by sea. Merchants tried tapping into markets far away from home. However, it became apparent that there was risk involved as well. One bad day at sea could sink a ship, and destroy the fortune of a merchant. So, to hedge this risk, merchants got together and created joint stock corporations which allows them pool the risk and uncertainty that came from operating an enterprise that spanned across vast distances and risked stormy seas, pirates and the ups and downs of the market. Thus a joint stock corporation could own 30 ships, if a few of them sank (the happening of which was all but inevitable) it would not bankrupt the company as they still owned many others that would be able to make up for the costs.

Corporatism is what the USA has today. Obamacare is a perfect example of Corporatism. For the first time ever citizens are forced by law to buy a product produced by private corporations.

It was a bill to make the insurance companies even richer. Give benefit to large corporations who can afford legal teams and the new benefit hikes and also take out their competition from smaller companies.

Capitalism is about free market competition. Bill Gates building a better mouse trap in his garage and taking over for IBM at the top of business.

Those days are disappearing due to regulations and costs added by our govt. and written by lobbyists who work for the corporations.

Post: #152

The "it isn't real capitalism" is like "it wasn't real socialism/communism." Any communist, socialist, or capitalist can give their preferred system the particular definition they want and then say it's never been tried so can never be criticized. Just like the Soviet Union was indeed a socialist state and all its ills happened under a socialist state and reflect on socialism in some way, the US is a capitalist state and the likes of our massive, anti-productive finance sector and corrupt government-business partnership is happening under a capitalist state and reflects on capitalism in some way -- just like the violent South American dictators backed by the US and the terrible pro-market reforms in Russia during the 90s were very much capitalist and reflect on capitalism in some way. This doesn't mean that an economic system is defined by the worst things that have happened under it nor that either system necessarily leads to the worst that has happened under it. But people should be serious and not just go around saying "that doesn't count" when their preferred economic system leads to bad outcomes.

Post: #153

(08-11-2015 10:13 AM)chagataev Wrote:  The "it isn't real capitalism" is like "it wasn't real socialism/communism." Any communist, socialist, or capitalist can give their preferred system the particular definition they want and then say it's never been tried so can never be criticized. Just like the Soviet Union was indeed a socialist state and all its ills happened under a socialist state and reflect on socialism in some way, the US is a capitalist state and the likes of our massive, anti-productive finance sector and corrupt government-business partnership is happening under a capitalist state and reflects on capitalism in some way -- just like the violent South American dictators backed by the US and the terrible pro-market reforms in Russia during the 90s were very much capitalist and reflect on capitalism in some way. This doesn't mean that an economic system is defined by the worst things that have happened under it nor that either system necessarily leads to the worst that has happened under it. But people should be serious and not just go around saying "that doesn't count" when their preferred economic system leads to bad outcomes.

It isn't a bad or good outcome, there is a definition for corporatism and that is the economic model the US operates under right now.

It started to be really be implemented in the late 1960's and has continued to grow and get worse for the middle class.

Now if you want to say that capitalism always becomes corporatism, then that is another argument. But the US economic system of today is corporatism.

Post: #154

In any capitalist democracy the super rich will take over the political system and become the democracy-makers. In America you have the Koch Brothers and rootless international gangsters like George Soros.

Post: #155

(08-11-2015 10:24 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  In any capitalist democracy the super rich will take over the political system and become the democracy-makers. In America you have the Koch Brothers and rootless international gangsters like George Soros.

Democracy is the key word. When every idiot is given the right to vote without earning it in any fashion, then the politicians simply have to buy the voters with "free" things. Like "free" college and "free" healthcare. Someone pays for those things, and it isn't the rich pushing the system.

Post: #156

(08-11-2015 10:07 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Capitalism is about free market competition. Bill Gates building a better mouse trap in his garage and taking over for IBM at the top of business.

Those days are disappearing due to regulations and costs added by our govt. and written by lobbyists who work for the corporations.

There is no competition, man. CEO's are high-fiving each other and playing squash at the same country club while making you think that Verizon and T-Mobile are mortal enemies.

Contrary to popular opinion, capitalism is more about cooperation than it is about competition, at least for the elites. It's the peons who have to "compete" for things like jobs, schools, and salaries.

Post: #157

(08-11-2015 12:40 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 10:07 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Capitalism is about free market competition. Bill Gates building a better mouse trap in his garage and taking over for IBM at the top of business.

Those days are disappearing due to regulations and costs added by our govt. and written by lobbyists who work for the corporations.

There is no competition, man. CEO's are high-fiving each other and playing squash at the same country club while making you think that Verizon and T-Mobile are mortal enemies.

Contrary to popular opinion, capitalism is more about cooperation than it is about competition, at least for the elites. It's the peons who have to "compete" for things like jobs, schools, and salaries.

Of course there is no competition. We don't have capitalism, we have corporatism. The CEO's hire entire legal teams to write complex regulations that get passed by their owned puppets in our govt. that help to boost there numbers and crush their competition.

Post: #158

(08-11-2015 10:24 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  In any capitalist democracy the super rich will take over the political system and become the democracy-makers. In America you have the Koch Brothers and rootless international gangsters like George Soros.

Chomsky says the idea of a "capitalist democracy" is BS. Interesting perspective. He also trashes Milton Friedman and libertarians

Post: #159

(08-11-2015 01:14 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 10:24 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  In any capitalist democracy the super rich will take over the political system and become the democracy-makers. In America you have the Koch Brothers and rootless international gangsters like George Soros.

Chomsky says the idea of a "capitalist democracy" is BS. Interesting perspective. He also trashes Milton Friedman and libertarians

OK, the problem is he comes at it from a different point of view entirely. He can claim he's some anarcho-whatever all he wants, but he's always been a goddamn communist. Libertarianism is a joke ideology but even in this video you can sense his disdain for private property altogether.

I care little about what the man has to say. He supported communism in North Vietnam during the war and denied the Cambodian Holocaust. He and Jane Fonda should be sharing a prison cell.

Post: #160

We haven't had genuine, "Adam Smith-endorsed" capitalism in the United States since the Roaring 20's. The New Deal and Federal Reserve macroeconomic regulation were evidence of that. Americans used to control their financial allocation/destinies, now we have forced FICA payments, payroll taxes , Social Security, 401K, etc. Employers used to provide benefits out of genuine care, in a communal sense. Now, it's to avoid lawsuits and political incorrectness. The greatest economic miracle in the 20th century was the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, it was 100% federal agency. It created modern, powerhouse corporations: Ford, GM, Sears-Roebuck, etc. The truth is that the US economy has been a sandbox of the Federal Reserve and corporations for a century. Some call it Classical Keynesian, I call it the "Cuddle, then Control" economic policy. The EU social democracy had to band together to compete in the world market, we didn't. So why did we? We gave it up a century ago to a couple financiers and politicians to save us from the Great Depression. We never got it back.

Essentially, our elites has sold us out via this Trilemma. Trump is advocating good ol' fashioned mercantilism to combat this.


I don't resent Bernie Sanders. I think he has a standup personality, he doesn't possess the spite, the self-loathing hatred we are accustomed to seeing. He's like the glass bottle with a treasure map inside, but the torrents of waves keep sweeping him. All his life, he's been swept by wherever the chaotic sea dictates, and he's never found the agency to resist it. He fought for racial equality decades ago, and was stunned by #Blacklivesmatter because the tides have brought him there before. It was a tragic reminiscence. Hopefully, that stunt opened his eyes. His Socialist policies are dangerous to our nation, but I believe his knowledge and genuine nature is to be applauded.

Post: #161

Post: #162

Turns out Bernie is a huge shill for bankers in disguise:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10829888/be...al-reserve

Bernie Sanders has the most realistic plan to boost wages and job creation

Quote:But beyond that, by simply articulating the views outlined in this op-ed, a Sanders administration could change the calculation in a meaningful way. Staffers at both the central Fed office in DC and several of the regional banks have consistently told me over the years that the central bank has felt implicitly restrained in how much it can stimulate economic growth by fear of actual and possible political criticism — criticism that comes almost exclusively from inflation hawks who accuse the Fed of doing too much.

A Sanders administration would balance the scales and give those inside the institution who favor a less inflation-phobic approach more room to operate while also reinforcing their ranks with new nominees.

Bernie Sanders just wants to print mad cash. Obviously that's the solution fellas. Give the Talmuds complete control over the banks to print and print so everyone is a millionaire! Then we'll all be rich!

Real talk: Giving more money printing power to the bankers is the exact opposite of taking power away from bankers. The more money they print, the more powerful they become. The current income disparity between the super rich in the US and the rest of the world has been accelerating since the FED starting printing cash in 2008, and Sanders wants to let them print way way more money.

Sanders would literally be the doom of the USA and would easily usher in hyperinflation. I'm sure Hillary would do the exact same thing. It would ensure my original prediction I made in 2010 that the USA will undergo hyperinflation by 2020.

Scary shit guys. This country would blow up with one epic Civil War if bankruptcy/hyperinflation occurs.

Post: #163

I hope the worthless son of a whore comes down with a bloody case of ass cancer. The rat bastard deserves to be face down in a ditch.

Post: #164

I received a junk mail flyer from Bernie making an issue out of the whole equal pay for women thing. Something about that being "only the beginning..." It had a picture of a rather homely feminist-looking girl on it.

Post: #165

Notice the differences between the two candidates.

On one side, we've got hunchback Sanders barely poking his head over the podium giving a pat on the back to a Muslim woman who looks like she's from Somalia, home to some of the most dangerous Muslims on the planet. On the other side we have Trump towering over his platform commanding the audience with powerful hand gestures.

Then, look at the audience itself. Behind Bernie there are smartphone addicted sluts attention whoring and not listening, single moms, a coked out brotha, a bunch of mangia dweebs who have probably never seen a pussy outside of the internet.

Meanwhile, Trump's audience is full of well-dressed successful people of all races, and in the center of the photo looking up at Trump is a Norman Rockwell White man looking up attentatively at Trump who could easily represent any average White guy in the country.

Who do you think voters are going to identify with? The reason Trump is going to win is because his competition is trash. The great irony of the above tweet is that the man who posted it thought it would help Bernie!

Post: #166

That faggot blocked me when I began exposing him. He cares if an audience is all white but wouldn't give a shit if it was all black, etc. He claims to but a bit further questioning caused him to shut down.

Post: #167

(01-27-2016 12:01 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  I received a junk mail flyer from Bernie making an issue out of the whole equal pay for women thing. Something about that being "only the beginning..." It had a picture of a rather homely feminist-looking girl on it.

He's simply not a leader. The more he campaigns the more it becomes obvious that he just goes wherever the strong wind blows. He's weak.

A strong leader doesn't just bow down to every point of view that comes at him with the loudest agendas. Look at how easily feminists and blacklivesmatters thugs have hijacked his platform again and again.

Other leaders on the world stage would bitch slap his silly NY Jew ass.

Post: #168

19 Trillion in debt, nothing he'll do will reduce that. Do the math.

Post: #169

I'm a little bored, so I'm thinking of trolling Sander's supporters with meme's of Bernie with Marx and Talmud quotes.

Post: #170

Done. I'll spread them around

Post: #171

(01-26-2016 03:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Turns out Bernie is a huge shill for bankers in disguise:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10829888/be...al-reserve

Bernie Sanders has the most realistic plan to boost wages and job creation

Quote:But beyond that, by simply articulating the views outlined in this op-ed, a Sanders administration could change the calculation in a meaningful way. Staffers at both the central Fed office in DC and several of the regional banks have consistently told me over the years that the central bank has felt implicitly restrained in how much it can stimulate economic growth by fear of actual and possible political criticism — criticism that comes almost exclusively from inflation hawks who accuse the Fed of doing too much.

A Sanders administration would balance the scales and give those inside the institution who favor a less inflation-phobic approach more room to operate while also reinforcing their ranks with new nominees.

Bernie Sanders just wants to print mad cash. Obviously that's the solution fellas. Give the Talmuds complete control over the banks to print and print so everyone is a millionaire! Then we'll all be rich!

Real talk: Giving more money printing power to the bankers is the exact opposite of taking power away from bankers. The more money they print, the more powerful they become. The current income disparity between the super rich in the US and the rest of the world has been accelerating since the FED starting printing cash in 2008, and Sanders wants to let them print way way more money.

Sanders would literally be the doom of the USA and would easily usher in hyperinflation. I'm sure Hillary would do the exact same thing. It would ensure my original prediction I made in 2010 that the USA will undergo hyperinflation by 2020.

Scary shit guys. This country would blow up with one epic Civil War if bankruptcy/hyperinflation occurs.

I doubt there would be a civil war. Long civil wars cost money and under hyperinflationary conditions nobody can afford to give credit to anyone. The US still stands as the last best hope for a world that does not fall back into fundamentalist religious war as we're seeing in Europe, but if you go by past history hyperinflation usually lasts between 18 months and 3 years at the outside. As the tech sector's current wobbles tell us, you can only fool the market for so much time. After 18 months to 3 years, the hyperinflated currency folds simply because nobody is using it and therefore the government is not getting any taxation out of it. People by this point have shifted to alternative means of exchange, gold being the stereotypical (and daft) resort. The government eventually has to fold and begin issuing a currency that people will trust. Exactly what generates that trust will differ - in the past it's been a currency backed by land, and who knows, in future it might well be a currency backed by gold - but that is how hyperinflation ends, and when it does, it typically happens with just as stunning speed as it began.

Technology changes these numbers significantly, though. The Internet changes everything, and the Internet in particular accelerates public fear or public confidence simply because an article can go viral in a matter of hours and destroy a person's reputation. A country's reputation can be destroyed just as quick. Past victims of hyperinflation did not have the Internet and did not have easy-ish access to digital forms of currency like bitcoin. While bitcoin's a bit of a joke right now, I expect it'll have its biggest boom when the US hits a hyperinflationary episode.

On the other hand, I also expect the Cunning-But-Stupid bureaucrats in Treasury and the IRS have contingency plans for that. If hyperinflation starts to happen do not be surprised to see Internet access or Internet transactions heavily curtailed if not cut off entirely. Net access is not quite so strong that nationalising or strongarming a few large corporations could not easily slow network traffic very heavily. As it is, there are significant legal and financial impediments being put in place to keep you in the US in the event of a hyperinflationary episode. As John T. Reed puts it: fuck Trump's wall, there is a financial Berlin Wall being put up all around the US and you are on the wrong side of it. Because this wall is designed to keep you and your labour where the government can draw on it for nothing, like a vampire.

I also have to admit to some doomsday prediction on this one: even if Trump gets and goes 8 years, he pretty much cannot stop the hyperinflation that is coming for the US. He might delay it or slow it by a few years, but the size of the debt is astronomical, increasing, and fundamentally founded on benefits that nobody wants to go without. Trump could try and cut the US's spending, but to get it back down to the period when the US was creditor to the world he would have to cut all Federal spending by at least 50% right now. No Republican Congress will take that to the US people - not when their Paul Ryan plan amounted to just balancing the US budget (not cutting the debt) in 28 years.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #172

^ I think Americans would revolt against a Democratic controlled White House that increases spending by 5x and prints trillions and trillions of dollars. The people would have nothing left to lose, welfare recipients will go broke and starving, crime will become tremendous.

No one will pay taxes, no one will obey the police, and no one is going to respect Washington. The loss of confidence in the dollar means a loss in confidence in the US Gov.

Quote:I also have to admit to some doomsday prediction on this one: even if Trump gets and goes 8 years, he pretty much cannot stop the hyperinflation that is coming for the US. He might delay it or slow it by a few years, but the size of the debt is astronomical, increasing, and fundamentally founded on benefits that nobody wants to go without. Trump could try and cut the US's spending, but to get it back down to the period when the US was creditor to the world he would have to cut all Federal spending by at least 50% right now. No Republican Congress will take that to the US people - not when their Paul Ryan plan amounted to just balancing the US budget (not cutting the debt) in 28 years.

Why can't a Trump controlled congress slash spending by 50%? He could easily do it. There is so much wasteful bullshit spending in America.

- Diversity programs
- Student loans for non-performing degrees
- Foreign Aid to Muslims and other tyrants
- Shit trade deals
- Government officials who are paid too much and do nothing
- Executive agencies (the alphabet agencies: FBI, CIA, etc. etc.) that serve no purpose and waste hundreds of billions

Really, the only limit is your imagination.

Post: #173

(01-28-2016 08:27 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Why can't a Trump controlled congress slash spending by 50%? He could easily do it. There is so much wasteful bullshit spending in America.

- Diversity programs
- Student loans for non-performing degrees
- Foreign Aid to Muslims and other tyrants
- Shit trade deals
- Government officials who are paid too much and do nothing
- Executive agencies (the alphabet agencies: FBI, CIA, etc. etc.) that serve no purpose and waste hundreds of billions

Really, the only limit is your imagination.

...and how many Republican enemies he has in Congress. If Trump does win it would not surprise me if the Republican Party still splits into the neocons versus everyone else. Trump can get a fair bit done by executive order, sure, but the moment you started cutting welfare or aid programs and requiring results for dollars, half those guys would roll over and side with the Democrats, surely?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #174

(01-28-2016 08:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 08:27 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Why can't a Trump controlled congress slash spending by 50%? He could easily do it. There is so much wasteful bullshit spending in America.

- Diversity programs
- Student loans for non-performing degrees
- Foreign Aid to Muslims and other tyrants
- Shit trade deals
- Government officials who are paid too much and do nothing
- Executive agencies (the alphabet agencies: FBI, CIA, etc. etc.) that serve no purpose and waste hundreds of billions

Really, the only limit is your imagination.

...and how many Republican enemies he has in Congress. If Trump does win it would not surprise me if the Republican Party still splits into the neocons versus everyone else. Trump can get a fair bit done by executive order, sure, but the moment you started cutting welfare or aid programs and requiring results for dollars, half those guys would roll over and side with the Democrats, surely?

He's going to sweep Congress. Anyone who opposes Trump will lose their seat.

Post: #175

(01-28-2016 08:27 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Why can't a Trump controlled congress slash spending by 50%? He could easily do it. There is so much wasteful bullshit spending in America.

- Diversity programs
- Student loans for non-performing degrees
- Foreign Aid to Muslims and other tyrants
- Shit trade deals
- Government officials who are paid too much and do nothing
- Executive agencies (the alphabet agencies: FBI, CIA, etc. etc.) that serve no purpose and waste hundreds of billions

Really, the only limit is your imagination.

Pat Buchanan was able to show how just freezing spending (no cuts) would balance the budget in 5 years. Of course, the liberal media would still try to present freezes as cuts.