Hillary just MOLLYWOPPED Sanders with black voters lol damn
Options
Comments
-
C'mon. Communism and socialism can be related, but they are not the same thing. For me, the former is a political system and the latter is an economic system. I think that it's important to mind this distinction.CashmoneyDux wrote: »I hate when people hear the word,socialismthey automatically think Communism, Leninism, or Stalinism. That's not how socialism works. And I don't see why market intervention from the government is a bad thing.
Many people, like me, consider market intervention to be a "bad" thing for various, sometimes obvious, reasons. For one, it unnecessarily and immorally violates individual liberty. More government, less freedom. Besides, I still have a hard time understanding why people trust, of all things, the government so much. How has this trust worked out recently? -
Democratic socialism even makes the absurd claim that "No see we arent like this other socialist we dont want government controlling everything but at the same time we are going to dictate the economy and control the major corporations. We promise unlike those other fake communist/socialist countries we won't become tyrannical
promise." -
C'mon. Communism and socialism can be related, but they are not the same thing. For me, the former is a political system and the latter is an economic system. I think that it's important to mind this distinction.CashmoneyDux wrote: »I hate when people hear the word,socialismthey automatically think Communism, Leninism, or Stalinism. That's not how socialism works. And I don't see why market intervention from the government is a bad thing.
Many people, like me, consider market intervention to be a "bad" thing for various, sometimes obvious, reasons. For one, it unnecessarily and immorally violates individual liberty. More government, less freedom. Besides, I still have a hard time understanding why people trust, of all things, the government so much. How has this trust worked out recently?
The only major difference is the claim that in socilasim there will be more liberties and freedoms granted. Of course that sounds completly fisable with the good old government that is sure to not be corrupt in anyway. It still doesn't allow movement in class. -
The_Jackal wrote: »CashmoneyDux wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »CashmoneyDux wrote: »I hate when people hear the word,socialismthey automatically think Communism, Leninism, or Stalinism. That's not how socialism works. And I don't see why market intervention from the government is a bad thing.
Communism and socialism are for all purpose the same thing except in socilasim workers are paid and the government owns the property.
And when has socilasim or communism ever worked
see, this is wrong. Socialism does not remove private property rights, but everyone is under this assumption due to McCarthyism and American paranoia.
? I didn't say it removed property rights. The government owns the property and means of production. Where communism the workers control those meand. That's literally the main difference and still doesn't allow for any class movement. Never worked never will
What property? -
The_Jackal wrote: »C'mon. Communism and socialism can be related, but they are not the same thing. For me, the former is a political system and the latter is an economic system. I think that it's important to mind this distinction.CashmoneyDux wrote: »I hate when people hear the word,socialismthey automatically think Communism, Leninism, or Stalinism. That's not how socialism works. And I don't see why market intervention from the government is a bad thing.
Many people, like me, consider market intervention to be a "bad" thing for various, sometimes obvious, reasons. For one, it unnecessarily and immorally violates individual liberty. More government, less freedom. Besides, I still have a hard time understanding why people trust, of all things, the government so much. How has this trust worked out recently?
The only major difference is the claim that in socilasim there will be more liberties and freedoms granted. Of course that sounds completly fisable with the good old government that is sure to not be corrupt in anyway. It still doesn't allow movement in class.
Yeah human nature is a muthafucka.
And that's my argument against free market capitalism. States might be coercive, but so are industries. Enron, Nestle, De Beers, the list goes on. -
CashmoneyDux wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »CashmoneyDux wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »CashmoneyDux wrote: »I hate when people hear the word,socialismthey automatically think Communism, Leninism, or Stalinism. That's not how socialism works. And I don't see why market intervention from the government is a bad thing.
Communism and socialism are for all purpose the same thing except in socilasim workers are paid and the government owns the property.
And when has socilasim or communism ever worked
see, this is wrong. Socialism does not remove private property rights, but everyone is under this assumption due to McCarthyism and American paranoia.
? I didn't say it removed property rights. The government owns the property and means of production. Where communism the workers control those meand. That's literally the main difference and still doesn't allow for any class movement. Never worked never will
What property?
Industry. My bad for being unclear -
CashmoneyDux wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »C'mon. Communism and socialism can be related, but they are not the same thing. For me, the former is a political system and the latter is an economic system. I think that it's important to mind this distinction.CashmoneyDux wrote: »I hate when people hear the word,socialismthey automatically think Communism, Leninism, or Stalinism. That's not how socialism works. And I don't see why market intervention from the government is a bad thing.
Many people, like me, consider market intervention to be a "bad" thing for various, sometimes obvious, reasons. For one, it unnecessarily and immorally violates individual liberty. More government, less freedom. Besides, I still have a hard time understanding why people trust, of all things, the government so much. How has this trust worked out recently?
The only major difference is the claim that in socilasim there will be more liberties and freedoms granted. Of course that sounds completly fisable with the good old government that is sure to not be corrupt in anyway. It still doesn't allow movement in class.
Yeah human nature is a muthafucka.
And that's my argument against free market capitalism. States might be coercive, but so are industries. Enron, Nestle, De Beers, the list goes on.
Free-market capitalism is certainly not a utopian endeavor and does/should not attempt to hide that fact at all, but it's much "better" than socialism for many reasons. The evils of government are much more destructive than the evils of corporations. When corporations commit crime, you can go to the government. But where do you go when the government commits crime?
Also, I hope you don't think that what we are practicing now is free-market capitalism because today is anything but that. We haven't practiced free-market capitalism in at least half a century, imo, at least in America. -
i admit it's not conducive to getting elected to bash your party (well, the party you're running as), although it doesn't seem to hurt Trump. but i don't think that alone is why Sanders can't win back the House/Senate (well, the Senate, because a Republican House seems solid for a few years to come) because i'm not hearing how Clinton CAN.She's got a better chance than the dude saying he's going to rally the people to root out "the establishment" to them. I don't understand how he expects to win his party's nomination while at the same time denouncing them. Bernie's not playing with a full deck.
i mean, it's like Clinton saying "i can get more done with a Republican Congress than Sanders": hey, it might be true, but can you tell me anything beyond "I WAS A SENATOR!!1" to support that?
thing is, right there i'm going to say "nah" because i refuse to give any president credit for "saving the economy." Obama's not a wizard.Obama saved the U.S. economy- -
of course, they're bought and sold by Clinton at this point, so what do you expect?babelipsss wrote: »The people who actually lived through the civil rights era (65+) didn't think he was all that important to the movement. They didn't vote for him. -
i have been saying this for years, but no one listens to me because they say "oh, janklow just wants to sleep on a mountain of guns"i do not trust hillary to say what she means and really stand up fpr what she believes in cuz i don't think she believes or stand for anything. willing to donate to her and get her votes, she's willing to say anything you want to her.
SO WHAT IF I DO
*bursts into tears, runs off*
-
5th Letter wrote: »The Republicans neeeed a president and if they get one NOW it's a ? wrap SMMFH.
There will be a Republican president in the long term but right now ?? It's seriously not needed.
What will Trump do that's any worse than what the democrats have done while in office? Outside of bringing back slavery or Jim Crow Trump can't be any worse. I'm not believing in any politicians anymore bruh.
You are aware of how your government works aren't you? -
Shizlansky wrote: »Ppl still thinking the economy is in the toilet.
? been improving and moving forward for a while and will still go forward.
Just the next president gon get all the credit for what Obama set in place
They will keep telling the lies though ? ! -
The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Spoiler Alert: Laissez Faire capitalism doesn't exist: it never has and never will. The invisible hand of the free market and the free market in and of itself is idealist nonsense.
Crony capitalism is a direct result of laissez faire capitalism; E.g., deregulation and globalization. Crony capitalism is an inevitable outcome when capitalism is left unfettered. Everything is for sale (including politicians) because "things will take their course."
But they wont take their course.
We are not on an even playing field as evidenced by our current state of being, and profits are not an effective measure of social well being when they are obtained by creating unemployment and declining living standards in one's home country (as well as the countries they exploit). But, you know things will just take their course. They will trickle down right?
They haven't and they wont!
Adhering to the idea that a pure and unhindered form of capitalism or socialism is best - is stupid. It's 2016, how about some eclecticism?
The government is a tool we can use to reign in all that ? if we can muster the ? to start holding those who are culpable - responsible. But people are too complacent or too scared to lose their place at the kids table to do ? . Which is why there is so much opposition to democratic socialism.
Contradiction much. But laissez faire was prominent in the industrial age until FDE took a stand against Monopolies. I agree with your point though a pure capitalism or socialism/communism system is horrible in itself.
Thought the ideas of Democratic socialism that capitalism is overall incapable of valuing freedom is foolish.
Laissez faire is an idea man. When policies are derivative of laissez faire we see what happens.
I worked absurd hours yesterday, so I'll expound later.
Laissez faire literally letting things take there own course without government interference. That was literally happening in the USA until FDE was elected. Business was completly unregulated.
Bruh, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm aware of the history, the etymology, and definition of laissez faire. If you'd like to point to my "contradictions" we can discuss those as well as contextual clues, but I don't like playing semantics. We're both too bright for that ? .
Saying that it doesn't exist but that crony capitalism is a derivative of it. I agree as of know it doesn't exist and that such a system would be utterly ? but there was a time when it was practice in American and it led to widespread abuse of individuals by companies and corporations.
What I mean to say is that it's derivative of those ideas. Pardon if that was unclear.
It doesn't exist because it cant. If their was always a fair exchange of goods and services history wouldn't be rife with such inequity. Anyhow, I understand you.
We need the free market to check socialism. We need the government to check capitalism. Otherwise we end up with something untenable.
The end product of both seems to be the same, gross inequality. You can look to Russia on one end and America on the other as they have comparable inequity.
I agree with that but at the same time am weary of that line of thinking. No economic system can truly create a completely equal society. Not saying you are suggesting that just that overall alot of other people tend to think pure capitalism or communism/socialism will solve every problem and it just won't
I think that depends on the country's size. In America you're probably right, but in a country of >10 million socialism tends to produce much better results
I'm highly sceptical of that but do you have any particular country in mind to back up that claim?
Norway and Sweden
Most of the Nordic countries really
They may have market economies but they have much higher taxes and a lot of government intervention when it comes to wealth distribution -
I don't think capitalism that goes unchecked is good for African people and especially for people who are not capitalists.
-
The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Spoiler Alert: Laissez Faire capitalism doesn't exist: it never has and never will. The invisible hand of the free market and the free market in and of itself is idealist nonsense.
Crony capitalism is a direct result of laissez faire capitalism; E.g., deregulation and globalization. Crony capitalism is an inevitable outcome when capitalism is left unfettered. Everything is for sale (including politicians) because "things will take their course."
But they wont take their course.
We are not on an even playing field as evidenced by our current state of being, and profits are not an effective measure of social well being when they are obtained by creating unemployment and declining living standards in one's home country (as well as the countries they exploit). But, you know things will just take their course. They will trickle down right?
They haven't and they wont!
Adhering to the idea that a pure and unhindered form of capitalism or socialism is best - is stupid. It's 2016, how about some eclecticism?
The government is a tool we can use to reign in all that ? if we can muster the ? to start holding those who are culpable - responsible. But people are too complacent or too scared to lose their place at the kids table to do ? . Which is why there is so much opposition to democratic socialism.
Contradiction much. But laissez faire was prominent in the industrial age until FDE took a stand against Monopolies. I agree with your point though a pure capitalism or socialism/communism system is horrible in itself.
Thought the ideas of Democratic socialism that capitalism is overall incapable of valuing freedom is foolish.
Laissez faire is an idea man. When policies are derivative of laissez faire we see what happens.
I worked absurd hours yesterday, so I'll expound later.
Laissez faire literally letting things take there own course without government interference. That was literally happening in the USA until FDE was elected. Business was completly unregulated.
Bruh, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm aware of the history, the etymology, and definition of laissez faire. If you'd like to point to my "contradictions" we can discuss those as well as contextual clues, but I don't like playing semantics. We're both too bright for that ? .
Saying that it doesn't exist but that crony capitalism is a derivative of it. I agree as of know it doesn't exist and that such a system would be utterly ? but there was a time when it was practice in American and it led to widespread abuse of individuals by companies and corporations.
What I mean to say is that it's derivative of those ideas. Pardon if that was unclear.
It doesn't exist because it cant. If their was always a fair exchange of goods and services history wouldn't be rife with such inequity. Anyhow, I understand you.
We need the free market to check socialism. We need the government to check capitalism. Otherwise we end up with something untenable.
The end product of both seems to be the same, gross inequality. You can look to Russia on one end and America on the other as they have comparable inequity.
I agree with that but at the same time am weary of that line of thinking. No economic system can truly create a completely equal society. Not saying you are suggesting that just that overall alot of other people tend to think pure capitalism or communism/socialism will solve every problem and it just won't
I think that depends on the country's size. In America you're probably right, but in a country of >10 million socialism tends to produce much better results
I'm highly sceptical of that but do you have any particular country in mind to back up that claim?
Norway and Sweden
Most of the Nordic countries really
They may have market economies but they have much higher taxes and a lot of government intervention when it comes to wealth distribution
Then it's capitalism mixed with socialistic aspects. That's not socialism at all. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »I don't think capitalism that goes unchecked is good for African people and especially for people who are not capitalists.
I don't think anyone here is in favor of capitalism being unchecked.
As for your second point what exactly are you proposing? There is no way a completely communism or socialism system would be able to keep up with a capitalism country -
CashmoneyDux wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »C'mon. Communism and socialism can be related, but they are not the same thing. For me, the former is a political system and the latter is an economic system. I think that it's important to mind this distinction.CashmoneyDux wrote: »I hate when people hear the word,socialismthey automatically think Communism, Leninism, or Stalinism. That's not how socialism works. And I don't see why market intervention from the government is a bad thing.
Many people, like me, consider market intervention to be a "bad" thing for various, sometimes obvious, reasons. For one, it unnecessarily and immorally violates individual liberty. More government, less freedom. Besides, I still have a hard time understanding why people trust, of all things, the government so much. How has this trust worked out recently?
The only major difference is the claim that in socilasim there will be more liberties and freedoms granted. Of course that sounds completly fisable with the good old government that is sure to not be corrupt in anyway. It still doesn't allow movement in class.
Yeah human nature is a muthafucka.
And that's my argument against free market capitalism. States might be coercive, but so are industries. Enron, Nestle, De Beers, the list goes on.
Free-market capitalism is certainly not a utopian endeavor and does/should not attempt to hide that fact at all, but it's much "better" than socialism for many reasons. The evils of government are much more destructive than the evils of corporations. When corporations commit crime, you can go to the government. But where do you go when the government commits crime?
Also, I hope you don't think that what we are practicing now is free-market capitalism because today is anything but that. We haven't practiced free-market capitalism in at least half a century, imo, at least in America.
And I understand this, but when the government sides with industries, then which one is worse?
We have been asking for a government leader that doesnt side with big business. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
and in no way am i advocated for socialism. That wouldnt work -
The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Spoiler Alert: Laissez Faire capitalism doesn't exist: it never has and never will. The invisible hand of the free market and the free market in and of itself is idealist nonsense.
Crony capitalism is a direct result of laissez faire capitalism; E.g., deregulation and globalization. Crony capitalism is an inevitable outcome when capitalism is left unfettered. Everything is for sale (including politicians) because "things will take their course."
But they wont take their course.
We are not on an even playing field as evidenced by our current state of being, and profits are not an effective measure of social well being when they are obtained by creating unemployment and declining living standards in one's home country (as well as the countries they exploit). But, you know things will just take their course. They will trickle down right?
They haven't and they wont!
Adhering to the idea that a pure and unhindered form of capitalism or socialism is best - is stupid. It's 2016, how about some eclecticism?
The government is a tool we can use to reign in all that ? if we can muster the ? to start holding those who are culpable - responsible. But people are too complacent or too scared to lose their place at the kids table to do ? . Which is why there is so much opposition to democratic socialism.
Contradiction much. But laissez faire was prominent in the industrial age until FDE took a stand against Monopolies. I agree with your point though a pure capitalism or socialism/communism system is horrible in itself.
Thought the ideas of Democratic socialism that capitalism is overall incapable of valuing freedom is foolish.
Laissez faire is an idea man. When policies are derivative of laissez faire we see what happens.
I worked absurd hours yesterday, so I'll expound later.
Laissez faire literally letting things take there own course without government interference. That was literally happening in the USA until FDE was elected. Business was completly unregulated.
Bruh, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm aware of the history, the etymology, and definition of laissez faire. If you'd like to point to my "contradictions" we can discuss those as well as contextual clues, but I don't like playing semantics. We're both too bright for that ? .
Saying that it doesn't exist but that crony capitalism is a derivative of it. I agree as of know it doesn't exist and that such a system would be utterly ? but there was a time when it was practice in American and it led to widespread abuse of individuals by companies and corporations.
What I mean to say is that it's derivative of those ideas. Pardon if that was unclear.
It doesn't exist because it cant. If their was always a fair exchange of goods and services history wouldn't be rife with such inequity. Anyhow, I understand you.
We need the free market to check socialism. We need the government to check capitalism. Otherwise we end up with something untenable.
The end product of both seems to be the same, gross inequality. You can look to Russia on one end and America on the other as they have comparable inequity.
I agree with that but at the same time am weary of that line of thinking. No economic system can truly create a completely equal society. Not saying you are suggesting that just that overall alot of other people tend to think pure capitalism or communism/socialism will solve every problem and it just won't
I think that depends on the country's size. In America you're probably right, but in a country of >10 million socialism tends to produce much better results
I'm highly sceptical of that but do you have any particular country in mind to back up that claim?
Norway and Sweden
Most of the Nordic countries really
They may have market economies but they have much higher taxes and a lot of government intervention when it comes to wealth distribution
Then it's capitalism mixed with socialistic aspects. That's not socialism at all.
If it's not socialism at all then why would you say it has aspects of socialism? Considering how many enterprises there are controlled by government (Alcohol, drugs, medicine, health care, education) and the prevalence and support of unions there it's a pretty split economy -
The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Spoiler Alert: Laissez Faire capitalism doesn't exist: it never has and never will. The invisible hand of the free market and the free market in and of itself is idealist nonsense.
Crony capitalism is a direct result of laissez faire capitalism; E.g., deregulation and globalization. Crony capitalism is an inevitable outcome when capitalism is left unfettered. Everything is for sale (including politicians) because "things will take their course."
But they wont take their course.
We are not on an even playing field as evidenced by our current state of being, and profits are not an effective measure of social well being when they are obtained by creating unemployment and declining living standards in one's home country (as well as the countries they exploit). But, you know things will just take their course. They will trickle down right?
They haven't and they wont!
Adhering to the idea that a pure and unhindered form of capitalism or socialism is best - is stupid. It's 2016, how about some eclecticism?
The government is a tool we can use to reign in all that ? if we can muster the ? to start holding those who are culpable - responsible. But people are too complacent or too scared to lose their place at the kids table to do ? . Which is why there is so much opposition to democratic socialism.
Contradiction much. But laissez faire was prominent in the industrial age until FDE took a stand against Monopolies. I agree with your point though a pure capitalism or socialism/communism system is horrible in itself.
Thought the ideas of Democratic socialism that capitalism is overall incapable of valuing freedom is foolish.
Laissez faire is an idea man. When policies are derivative of laissez faire we see what happens.
I worked absurd hours yesterday, so I'll expound later.
Laissez faire literally letting things take there own course without government interference. That was literally happening in the USA until FDE was elected. Business was completly unregulated.
Bruh, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm aware of the history, the etymology, and definition of laissez faire. If you'd like to point to my "contradictions" we can discuss those as well as contextual clues, but I don't like playing semantics. We're both too bright for that ? .
Saying that it doesn't exist but that crony capitalism is a derivative of it. I agree as of know it doesn't exist and that such a system would be utterly ? but there was a time when it was practice in American and it led to widespread abuse of individuals by companies and corporations.
What I mean to say is that it's derivative of those ideas. Pardon if that was unclear.
It doesn't exist because it cant. If their was always a fair exchange of goods and services history wouldn't be rife with such inequity. Anyhow, I understand you.
We need the free market to check socialism. We need the government to check capitalism. Otherwise we end up with something untenable.
The end product of both seems to be the same, gross inequality. You can look to Russia on one end and America on the other as they have comparable inequity.
I agree with that but at the same time am weary of that line of thinking. No economic system can truly create a completely equal society. Not saying you are suggesting that just that overall alot of other people tend to think pure capitalism or communism/socialism will solve every problem and it just won't
I think that depends on the country's size. In America you're probably right, but in a country of >10 million socialism tends to produce much better results
I'm highly sceptical of that but do you have any particular country in mind to back up that claim?
Norway and Sweden
Most of the Nordic countries really
They may have market economies but they have much higher taxes and a lot of government intervention when it comes to wealth distribution
Then it's capitalism mixed with socialistic aspects. That's not socialism at all.
If it's not socialism at all then why would you say it has aspects of socialism? Considering how many enterprises there are controlled by government (Alcohol, drugs, medicine, health care, education) and the prevalence and support of unions there it's a pretty split economy
But all those enterprises are also controlled and regulated in the US by the government so I'm not exactly sure at what you are getting at. As far as me saying it's not socialism at all i mean socialism in the purest sense. -
if they think she's more likely to win in a general election, hey, i suppose there's a case for that (obviously depends on the match-up). i just don't see how she brings the Senate or legislative compromise to the table any more than Sanders does.I think the democrats have more faith in Hillary given how she is as a politician and would rather not take a chance on Sanders with his views and him being an outsider to them. They just want a sure bet for someone they think will stop the Republican nominee in the presidential election. I also think Hillary is more of a bully and a dog when it comes to politics.
remember, this is the woman who answered "Republicans" on national TV when asked what enemy she was most proud of.
i don't think it's saying he did nothing for 8 years to say he didn't save the economy. i don't think ANY president can fix or wreck it all by themselves. if we're saying his sole achievement was fixing the economy... then yeah, i would agree he has done anything?We'll have to agree to disagree then. To say he didn't means to take away and not credit him for anything of major significance like he wasn't president for 8 years. He did a remarkable job.
plus, you can be president and not do anything of significance. all kinds of old school presidents proven THAT. -
The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Spoiler Alert: Laissez Faire capitalism doesn't exist: it never has and never will. The invisible hand of the free market and the free market in and of itself is idealist nonsense.
Crony capitalism is a direct result of laissez faire capitalism; E.g., deregulation and globalization. Crony capitalism is an inevitable outcome when capitalism is left unfettered. Everything is for sale (including politicians) because "things will take their course."
But they wont take their course.
We are not on an even playing field as evidenced by our current state of being, and profits are not an effective measure of social well being when they are obtained by creating unemployment and declining living standards in one's home country (as well as the countries they exploit). But, you know things will just take their course. They will trickle down right?
They haven't and they wont!
Adhering to the idea that a pure and unhindered form of capitalism or socialism is best - is stupid. It's 2016, how about some eclecticism?
The government is a tool we can use to reign in all that ? if we can muster the ? to start holding those who are culpable - responsible. But people are too complacent or too scared to lose their place at the kids table to do ? . Which is why there is so much opposition to democratic socialism.
Contradiction much. But laissez faire was prominent in the industrial age until FDE took a stand against Monopolies. I agree with your point though a pure capitalism or socialism/communism system is horrible in itself.
Thought the ideas of Democratic socialism that capitalism is overall incapable of valuing freedom is foolish.
Laissez faire is an idea man. When policies are derivative of laissez faire we see what happens.
I worked absurd hours yesterday, so I'll expound later.
Laissez faire literally letting things take there own course without government interference. That was literally happening in the USA until FDE was elected. Business was completly unregulated.
Bruh, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm aware of the history, the etymology, and definition of laissez faire. If you'd like to point to my "contradictions" we can discuss those as well as contextual clues, but I don't like playing semantics. We're both too bright for that ? .
Saying that it doesn't exist but that crony capitalism is a derivative of it. I agree as of know it doesn't exist and that such a system would be utterly ? but there was a time when it was practice in American and it led to widespread abuse of individuals by companies and corporations.
What I mean to say is that it's derivative of those ideas. Pardon if that was unclear.
It doesn't exist because it cant. If their was always a fair exchange of goods and services history wouldn't be rife with such inequity. Anyhow, I understand you.
We need the free market to check socialism. We need the government to check capitalism. Otherwise we end up with something untenable.
The end product of both seems to be the same, gross inequality. You can look to Russia on one end and America on the other as they have comparable inequity.
I agree with that but at the same time am weary of that line of thinking. No economic system can truly create a completely equal society. Not saying you are suggesting that just that overall alot of other people tend to think pure capitalism or communism/socialism will solve every problem and it just won't
I think that depends on the country's size. In America you're probably right, but in a country of >10 million socialism tends to produce much better results
I'm highly sceptical of that but do you have any particular country in mind to back up that claim?
Norway and Sweden
Most of the Nordic countries really
They may have market economies but they have much higher taxes and a lot of government intervention when it comes to wealth distribution
Then it's capitalism mixed with socialistic aspects. That's not socialism at all.
If it's not socialism at all then why would you say it has aspects of socialism? Considering how many enterprises there are controlled by government (Alcohol, drugs, medicine, health care, education) and the prevalence and support of unions there it's a pretty split economy
But all those enterprises are also controlled and regulated in the US by the government so I'm not exactly sure at what you are getting at. As far as me saying it's not socialism at all i mean socialism in the purest sense.
It's not quite the same. You have privately owned liquor stores in the US. In Sweden the sale is restricted to government controlled retailers. Most universities in Scandinavia are publicly funded, whereas the states has a ton of private institution, that while perform better, keep poorer students from enrolling. The government regulates the distribution of medication but your system is still 2 tier which puts the onus on citizens to find insurance, rather than having the system pay for everything.
The means of production are not entirely public but they have wage ceilings and fines/tickets are even calculated based on wage. I'm not sure how you can get anymore socialist without restricting the rights of citizens to create their own businesses. -
The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Spoiler Alert: Laissez Faire capitalism doesn't exist: it never has and never will. The invisible hand of the free market and the free market in and of itself is idealist nonsense.
Crony capitalism is a direct result of laissez faire capitalism; E.g., deregulation and globalization. Crony capitalism is an inevitable outcome when capitalism is left unfettered. Everything is for sale (including politicians) because "things will take their course."
But they wont take their course.
We are not on an even playing field as evidenced by our current state of being, and profits are not an effective measure of social well being when they are obtained by creating unemployment and declining living standards in one's home country (as well as the countries they exploit). But, you know things will just take their course. They will trickle down right?
They haven't and they wont!
Adhering to the idea that a pure and unhindered form of capitalism or socialism is best - is stupid. It's 2016, how about some eclecticism?
The government is a tool we can use to reign in all that ? if we can muster the ? to start holding those who are culpable - responsible. But people are too complacent or too scared to lose their place at the kids table to do ? . Which is why there is so much opposition to democratic socialism.
Contradiction much. But laissez faire was prominent in the industrial age until FDE took a stand against Monopolies. I agree with your point though a pure capitalism or socialism/communism system is horrible in itself.
Thought the ideas of Democratic socialism that capitalism is overall incapable of valuing freedom is foolish.
Laissez faire is an idea man. When policies are derivative of laissez faire we see what happens.
I worked absurd hours yesterday, so I'll expound later.
Laissez faire literally letting things take there own course without government interference. That was literally happening in the USA until FDE was elected. Business was completly unregulated.
Bruh, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm aware of the history, the etymology, and definition of laissez faire. If you'd like to point to my "contradictions" we can discuss those as well as contextual clues, but I don't like playing semantics. We're both too bright for that ? .
Saying that it doesn't exist but that crony capitalism is a derivative of it. I agree as of know it doesn't exist and that such a system would be utterly ? but there was a time when it was practice in American and it led to widespread abuse of individuals by companies and corporations.
What I mean to say is that it's derivative of those ideas. Pardon if that was unclear.
It doesn't exist because it cant. If their was always a fair exchange of goods and services history wouldn't be rife with such inequity. Anyhow, I understand you.
We need the free market to check socialism. We need the government to check capitalism. Otherwise we end up with something untenable.
The end product of both seems to be the same, gross inequality. You can look to Russia on one end and America on the other as they have comparable inequity.
I agree with that but at the same time am weary of that line of thinking. No economic system can truly create a completely equal society. Not saying you are suggesting that just that overall alot of other people tend to think pure capitalism or communism/socialism will solve every problem and it just won't
I think that depends on the country's size. In America you're probably right, but in a country of >10 million socialism tends to produce much better results
I'm highly sceptical of that but do you have any particular country in mind to back up that claim?
Norway and Sweden
Most of the Nordic countries really
They may have market economies but they have much higher taxes and a lot of government intervention when it comes to wealth distribution
Then it's capitalism mixed with socialistic aspects. That's not socialism at all.
If it's not socialism at all then why would you say it has aspects of socialism? Considering how many enterprises there are controlled by government (Alcohol, drugs, medicine, health care, education) and the prevalence and support of unions there it's a pretty split economy
But all those enterprises are also controlled and regulated in the US by the government so I'm not exactly sure at what you are getting at. As far as me saying it's not socialism at all i mean socialism in the purest sense.
It's not quite the same. You have privately owned liquor stores in the US. In Sweden the sale is restricted to government controlled retailers. Most universities in Scandinavia are publicly funded, whereas the states has a ton of private institution, that while perform better, keep poorer students from enrolling. The government regulates the distribution of medication but your system is still 2 tier which puts the onus on citizens to find insurance, rather than having the system pay for everything.
The means of production are not entirely public but they have wage ceilings and fines/tickets are even calculated based on wage. I'm not sure how you can get anymore socialist without restricting the rights of citizens to create their own businesses.
That is literally the key tenth of socialism. You cannot call a country socialist if the government isn't in control of corporations and industry.
I'm not arguing that they aren't a split economy just that a pure socialist economy would damper rights and completly restrict class movement -
Tonight, Hillary cleaned up with black voters. Killer Mike and the rest of yall need to sit down somewhere. Black people are speaking all across the country and they're choosing Hillary.
The % of the black vote won in tonight's primaries:
Virginia: Hillary 84%, Bernie 16%
Tennessee: Hillary 82%, Bernie 18%
Georgia: Hillary 83%, Bernie 17%
Alabama: Hillary 87%, Bernie 13%
Arkansas: Hillary 88%, Bernie 12%
All this in addition to the fact that Hillary won 86% of the black vote in South Carolina last week.
-
Tonight, Hillary cleaned up with black voters. Killer Mike and the rest of yall need to sit down somewhere. Black people are speaking all across the country and they're choosing Hillary.
The % of the black vote won in tonight's primaries:
Virginia: Hillary 84%, Bernie 16%
Tennessee: Hillary 82%, Bernie 18%
Georgia: Hillary 83%, Bernie 17%
Alabama: Hillary 87%, Bernie 13%
Arkansas: Hillary 88%, Bernie 12%
All this in addition to the fact that Hillary won 86% of the black vote in South Carolina last week.
shut the ? up -
Tonight, Hillary cleaned up with black voters. Killer Mike and the rest of yall need to sit down somewhere. Black people are speaking all across the country and they're choosing Hillary.
The % of the black vote won in tonight's primaries:
Virginia: Hillary 84%, Bernie 16%
Tennessee: Hillary 82%, Bernie 18%
Georgia: Hillary 83%, Bernie 17%
Alabama: Hillary 87%, Bernie 13%
Arkansas: Hillary 88%, Bernie 12%
All this in addition to the fact that Hillary won 86% of the black vote in South Carolina last week.
shut the ? up
Are you mad because Sanders got murdered tonight? Get all that "free" ? outta here. Democrats want to win the election. They want to pick Supreme Court justices and decide whether we go to war or not. You can't do that with a candidate who unrealistically promises he'll give everything to everyone for free.
Quit crying.
