FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 29,613
- 2,263
- 126
Interesting. How does capitalism corrupt the state?
Because its not Communism, which is what they want in California, Oregon, Washington, etc.
Sad.
Interesting. How does capitalism corrupt the state?
Because its not Communism, which is what they want in California, Oregon, Washington, etc.
Sad.
It's like the company that's going under that cleans house of upper management and promotes from within. The culture doesn't change, just the faces.Maybe rather than being pissed off about someone's $76k/month pension, states should stop hiring athletic coaches for seven figures thus necessitating said 76k pensions later on? Otherwise it’s like buying a luxury car then bitching about how high the monthly loan payments are.
The people aren't being forced to pay.Does that make sense to you? The people being forced to pay have no ability to negotiate. It is by definition not what you said it was. You have parties that are negotiating with other people's money, which is the antithesis of Laissez-faire.
" is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation, privileges, tariffs and subsidies."
Do you now see the problem?
I can sit back and watch the world burn as well as the next guy. I can't do anything about it so I may as well enjoy the show.
We elected a guy that's trying to turn it all around and he's doing a damned good job of it but he won't be there forever.
Looked at your country's government recently?
The people aren't being forced to pay.
The ability to negotiate was handled in the previous election.
Welcome to representative government 101.
It isn't so much funny that you say that out loud, as much as it's funny that you believe this.
That's like saying the customer is forced to pay for people's raises in private companies.The people are being forced to pay. Democracy in this case has overridden capitalism.
You think Democracy should be subservient to an arbitrary economic system that isn't mentioned, curiously enough, anywhere in the Constitution? Because representative democracy, aka a democratic republic, is the very basis of the US Constitution.The people are being forced to pay. Democracy in this case has overridden capitalism.
We elected a guy that's trying to turn it all around and he's doing a damned good job of it but he won't be there forever.
That's like saying the customer is forced to pay for people's raises in private companies.
You think Democracy should be subservient to an arbitrary economic system that isn't mentioned, curiously enough, anywhere in the Constitution? Because representative democracy, aka a democratic republic, is the very basis of the US Constitution.
Yes, and what I see is those with power corrupting the government and capitalism. Thus, not capitalism corrupting, but capitalism getting corrupted.
So, budget busting tax cuts for the Rich are a way to turn it around? Or are you simply delusional?
Why do you bother? He's simply pissing on your shoes.
Because it's important to remind everyone of the mindset behind it - of an old simpeton that's willing to burn everything down because they've failed at life and want to draw everyone down into it.
Interesting. How does capitalism corrupt the state?
It's like scolding your Chia pet for peeing on the floor when you over water it.Why do you bother? He's simply pissing on your shoes.
No. I think its dumb to say that this is Laissez-faire when its not. That is what I said, and is my point, that is the topic. If you want to talk about something else, feel free, but it was not my point nor the current topic.
Because capitalism produces large (and increasing) inequalities of wealth, and wealth buys political power.
It also encourages the same economic-status-competition among state employees that exists among everyone else.
Ages ago the Economist devoted most of an issue to a variety of stories all pleading in different ways for 'capitalists' to altruistically worry about defending 'capitalism' rather than their own individual self-interest. The trouble is there's a contradiction in doing that.
Only if you think all markets are perfect.
What do you think of the non-profit hospital industry consolidating the shit out of hospitals and moving them out of the inner city? Last year, a huge conglomerate bought the inner city hospital (St Joes) my daughter was born in promising not to close it. Well they announced a week or so ago that they were cutting most services. This leaves Milwaukee with 1 full service inner city hospital...... 1. In 1977, there were 10. Meanwhile, Oconomowoc (with a whopping population of 15,000) has 3:
Oconomowoc Memorial Hospital
Rodgers Memorial Hospital
Aurora Medical Center
All of these hospitals are trying to outswank the others. Turning their hospitals to luxury spas. Check out Rodgers.
https://rogersbh.org/locations/oconomowoc
So why has America allowed non-profits which are supposed to serve a greater good do this? What do you think it does for race relations when blacks see all their hospitals closed up and a glut of mammoth luxury hospitals opening FAR FAR away from them in all white communities?
I guess I'm just old and had enough of 'trying to do the right thing' with idiots like that. It's sad, I suppose, but I'm reduced to tossing simple ridicule at them for the most part as I no longer give enough of a damn to bother treating them, or what they have to say, seriously. Occasionally I'll toss in some actual fact(s) to counter some idiocy or other but mostly I just can't be bothered. <shrug>
