Global economics are recreating the conditions of early industrial capitalism. How do we survive?

How do we survive? What makes you think that we wouldn't?

WHAT Capitalism?

What's wrong with Capitalism anyway.
Socialism is fine until you run out of the hard working peoples money to spend on the bums of this world.

we may never know, I don't believe anyone has achieved a true Socilist or capitalist society,,to be honest

we have done well at maintaining a plutocratic society instead,, and disguising it by calling it capitalism or socialism

for those unfamiliar

plutocracy: government by the wealthy.
•a country or society governed by the wealthy


capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state


socialism:a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

we are a society of the wealthy, by the wealthy , and for the wealthy

we do get crumbs sometimes though, so its better than nothing

we can always eat cake!!!

So wrong.

So well said I havent heard our situation described so succinctly.

We can eat Cake (crumbs). You got that right. Since you appear sensible and I am new, Here is what I believe. Tell me what you think.

The Federal Reserve was established against the will of the majority to gain control over this country by the Cabal of the Rothchilds in 1913 through the Rockefellers and the Morgans.
Using the federal Reserve they caused the great depression According to Milton Friedman and admitted by Ben Bernanke.

This was done to prepare the way for Socialism to make en roads into our Capitalistic society (then). Now we are more socialist than Capitalist. QE is socialism Obamacare is socialism and so are all the other subsidies that artificially create bubbles that are unsustainable.

Religion was moved out of mainstream America because socialism cannot survive in a religious society.

How am I doing so far?

Actually, msharmony is not wrong, at all.

A capitalist society could exist and perhaps thrive; we have no way of knowing because we've never really tried it.


Factually-speaking, of course.


http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

We've controlled who gets to sit at the table while the pie's being sliced up since we were formed; first by deciding who is a "citizen" and who is not, then by deciding who CAN become a citizen and who can't. It took 'til 1920 to decide that any adult citizen could have voice - via voting - in how our nation would be run. It took us 'til the mid-1960s to get around to actually including, in writing, into our Constitution that MOST adults in the U.S. should have equal access to equal rights. We drew the line at granting such written authorization for women by refusing to ratify the ERA, so - on paper and Constitutionally-speaking - women are the lone *special* segment within the U.S. Yay, us!!!


That's not a great track record with "Capitalism"; they are the perfect conditions for maintaining and sustaining a Plutocracy.


Again, factually-speaking, of course.

Renaming the US.

Dislocated States of Welfare



Consumers who do not contribute are the drain on those the tax burden falls on.

Cut welfare, free phones and free internet, the contributors could live better.

Cut military spending, social security, and Pell grants and the contributors could live better, too.


As a matter of fact, cut all taxation - income, sales, gas, property, business, etc. - and those who'd previously been paying taxes would have more coin in their pockets.

Same can be said if those who've been making mortgage payments, stopped. Those who've been eating, stopped buying food. It's a pretty universal concept: if you don't spend money on anything, you'll have more money in your pocket. If you don't eat your apples, you'll have more apples. If you don't drive anywhere, you'll have more gas.


What's your point?

All those examples reminds me of a troll who posts on forums.

Always to the extreme and always excusing irresponsibility and defending da wailfur ho.

@ willing2:

Speaking of "extremes" and "excusing irresponsibility",
since I "always" do it, could you tell me who
hacked my account and posted as me, yesterday, in the
thread "The Myth of Choice" in the GD forum? Since I'm "always" "excusing irresponsibility", it's
"extremely" easy to discern that someone
was posting AS me.

Oh, and I don't think I've ever defended a "wailfur ho",
partly because I've never used such a phrase
when making a point but mostly because I know how to
correctly spell words.



After reading your posts - and especially those
you've directed my way - I'm not overly concerned
with what my posts remind you of.

But, since you mentioned it and just out curiosity...
do you sit in front of a mirror while online?

Go ahead and have the last word; it's my understanding
that this site doesn't tolerate personal attacks,
and so by continuing to respond to your personal
attacks directed at me, I'm simply encouraging you
to continue to break The Rules.

My statement was not directed at you.
I did not say you do that.
Just reminds me of one that does.

More twist and shout.
I don't attack posters, I know better.

Have you ever heard of sociocultural evolution?

There is nothing that is described in your post that wasn't prevalent around the world.

To pretend that our version of capitalism is to blame for the attitudes and societal norms of those days is absurd.

This is a constitutional republic that was set up in a way that the 'people' have the ability to make changes to it's government via the ballot box.

If you don't like the rich people running the government then vote for someone else.

If this becomes a plutocracy the 'people' have no one to blame but themselves..

But it is easier for the progressive types to blame a system instead of the complete lack of personal responsibility associated with the pathetic percentage of people that vote or understand basic civics..

at the end of the day, the workers are still controlled by the wealthholders and the wealthholders run the government because, beyond all the political labels,, the universal truth is that

money talks,,,

Since this part was skewed, it tainted the veracity of the rest of it.

In addition to being a Constitutional Republic (which simply refers to the 3 branches of power and how that power is distributed), we are run NOT as a democracy (popular vote) nor as a republic (representatives making the decisions for the citizens); we are a democratic republic.


We vote individually and democratically, but our votes do not count 1:1; our individual votes are funneled into our representatives in the Electoral College. Those representatives cast their votes and are supposed to vote in accordance with the majority, popular vote they are charged with.


Our founding fathers did this on purpose; they did not want votes from parts of the country that "didn't matter" to carry the same weight as votes coming from the "important places", where *real* business was conducted. The number of people living in each state, updated with each 10-year census, determines how many Senators and Representatives they send to Washington; that number represents how many electoral votes each state gets. Our votes were never intended to count 1:1; votes from more-populous states carry more weight than those from less-populous states. Thus, the majority majority rules.



For the record - since at least one person completely misread, misinterpreted and then mis-put-words-in-my-mouth, I have no problem with Capitalism. I think, allowed to run purely and completely unfettered, it's probably just about the best system out there. I have a problem with tampered-with, tip-the-scales-in-one-segment's-favor, let-'em-all-fight-for-their-fair-share of 15% of the American Pie and slapping a bow on it and calling it "Capitalism".


I also agreed with Reagan's trickle-down theory. The problem was the people pouring it out at the top grew tired of the trickling TOO far down and decided they'd rather siphon it off at about (and I'm being generous, here) 1/3 of the way down on its trickling-down journey.

In addition to stacking the deck from our inception to ensure we'd never be operating with true capitalism, we ensured we were anything BUT a capitalist society when the idea of government bailouts became popular as a way to *help* during the Great Depression.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-first-government-bailouts-the-story-of-the-rfc

http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts


Since the formation of the RFC, rich Capitalists who made their billions by selling widgets at $5.00/unit who suddenly can't give them away anymore because people aren't buying widgets anymore, because of a nifty new gizmo that's replaced it, get bailouts from the government to stay in business so people will have *jobs* and not be on unemployment and later, when that runs out, end up on welfare.

And it all translates into votes. The guy whose job got saved goes and casts a vote for that nifty President who saved his job and his vote only counts if the company he works for is in a big enough state where enough business is generated TO decide the fate of the country.

It's rare that a company in Alaska, or South Dakota, or North Dakota is deemed "too big to fail". Go figure.


A tad oversimplified, but the reality of it all, in a nutshell.


If people are going to champion a system as the greatest thing since sliced bread, at least know how it works. More importantly, you might want to pay attention to how much that which you're championing works against you, before putting on your cheerleading skirts and picking up your pom-poms.

SNAP!!!

lol


ur one of my favorite people to disagree with, cause even when we disagree, you have clearly thought through your position,,,


its never just mudslinging and catchy clich�s with you,,,



and Im thinking on this position, we agree