What?s next after capitalism falls apart in the US?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Go read about the antitrust suit and gates sudden interest in charitys to cover his ass, dont be a dope.

He has been hounded for his illegal practices for ages and his little tax shelter "goodwill" charities are no excuse for him to continue to try to hide what he really is, a leech.

So he gave billions, but just not in the manner that suited you, is that it? I find it odd that you pretend to care about the poor when really all you care about is sticking it to the rich. This is a democracy. Kindly don't grind your axe with my government.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
Really? I was thinking the same thing about you two. Keep hoping for that end of the world though... the rich are hoping for another round of "bargain days" (exact quote of what J. Paul Getty called the '30s), and they're counting on you to bring it to them.

Interesting that you brought that up as it's the same mentality (and, in the case of the current administration, actually descendents of people from that timeframe) that has put us into the fragile state of our economy today. The robber baron mentality has come back to repeat the results from last century.

Oooh nice diversion. I'll do one of my own. I like your comment "actually descendents of people from that timeframe" as though every single fsckin person on earth is not a descendant of people from that timeframe. 😀
You need to widen that narrow scope of yours, conjur. Big picture, man, big picture. Now wonder you call me an "extremist." Your only point of relevance and perspective is yourself.

Diversion? You're the one that brought up the robber baron mentality.

But, I guess you're denying George W. Bush is a descendent of George Herbert Walker and also of Prescott Bush? You know, the guys involved with Brown Brothers Harriman; took over the Union Pacific from Harriman; etc. Big Yale types that helped kick off the birth of the CIA and profited immensely from the creation of a military-industrial complex?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
Really? I was thinking the same thing about you two. Keep hoping for that end of the world though... the rich are hoping for another round of "bargain days" (exact quote of what J. Paul Getty called the '30s), and they're counting on you to bring it to them.

Interesting that you brought that up as it's the same mentality (and, in the case of the current administration, actually descendents of people from that timeframe) that has put us into the fragile state of our economy today. The robber baron mentality has come back to repeat the results from last century.

Oooh nice diversion. I'll do one of my own. I like your comment "actually descendents of people from that timeframe" as though every single fsckin person on earth is not a descendant of people from that timeframe. 😀
You need to widen that narrow scope of yours, conjur. Big picture, man, big picture. Now wonder you call me an "extremist." Your only point of relevance and perspective is yourself.

Diversion? You're the one that brought up the robber baron mentality.

But, I guess you're denying George W. Bush is a descendent of George Herbert Walker and also of Prescott Bush? You know, the guys involved with Brown Brothers Harriman; took over the Union Pacific from Harriman; etc. Big Yale types that helped kick off the birth of the CIA and profited immensely from the creation of a military-industrial complex?

Where and why would I deny that? :roll:

Did you know that he can trace his family tree back to the Plantagenets? His family has a long history of getting rich with government money.

What's your point? I didn't bring up the robber baron mentality. I brought up how people like you help them.

 

[conjur]

Uh, people like me help them? Uhh...yeah...right.

Keep spinning, Vic. Maybe you'll drill a hole in the ground with your spinning and discover oil and all your problems will be over.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Go read about the antitrust suit and gates sudden interest in charitys to cover his ass, dont be a dope.

He has been hounded for his illegal practices for ages and his little tax shelter "goodwill" charities are no excuse for him to continue to try to hide what he really is, a leech.

So he gave billions, but just not in the manner that suited you, is that it? I find it odd that you pretend to care about the poor when really all you care about is sticking it to the rich. This is a democracy. Kindly don't grind your axe with my government.

The problem isn't the manner in which he gives billions. The problem is that those billions are ill-gotten gains. Bill Gates can't redeem himself through charity any more than a bank robber who donates half the loot to charity. I have no problem with someone getting rich by running an honest business, but it's much, much easier to get rich by cheating people. By cheating I include not just fraud, but anticompetitive practices.

If you believe in free markets you should fight for them, not close your eyes and pretend every private business earns their profits honestly in a competitive market.

EDIT I should say that part of Bill Gates' billions are ill-gotten gains. He made more money by monopolizing than he would have by competing honestly. There's a difference between killing the competition and killing the competitive market.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, people like me help them? Uhh...yeah...right.

Keep spinning, Vic. Maybe you'll drill a hole in the ground with your spinning and discover oil and all your problems will be over.

Heh. Just like you keep running away, eh?

And yes, you help them. You think a big economic downturn will hurt the perenially rich. As if! They're hedged, baby. Up, down, they don't care, they still make money. But they love downturns. Fools run to the government to give it more power and other peoples' money and guess what? They own the government! You give them exactly what they want. How is this hard for you to figure out? Or maybe you just don't want to after you and McOwen have been seen hoping and praying for the end of the world for so long?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Go read about the antitrust suit and gates sudden interest in charitys to cover his ass, dont be a dope.

He has been hounded for his illegal practices for ages and his little tax shelter "goodwill" charities are no excuse for him to continue to try to hide what he really is, a leech.

So he gave billions, but just not in the manner that suited you, is that it? I find it odd that you pretend to care about the poor when really all you care about is sticking it to the rich. This is a democracy. Kindly don't grind your axe with my government.

The problem isn't the manner in which he gives billions. The problem is that those billions are ill-gotten gains. Bill Gates can't redeem himself through charity any more than a bank robber who donates half the loot to charity. I have no problem with someone getting rich by running an honest business, but it's much, much easier to get rich by cheating people. By cheating I include not just fraud, but anticompetitive practices.

If you believe in free markets you should fight for them, not close your eyes and pretend every private business earns their profits honestly in a competitive market.

You miss the point entirely. I do fight for free markets. But free markets don't come through government control. Government is the biggest, most powerful, and most corrupt monopoly of them all. Go back to the original context of how Bill Gates entered this discussion if you can't figure out what I'm referring to.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, people like me help them? Uhh...yeah...right.

Keep spinning, Vic. Maybe you'll drill a hole in the ground with your spinning and discover oil and all your problems will be over.

Heh. Just like you keep running away, eh?

And yes, you help them. You think a big economic downturn will hurt the perenially rich. As if! They're hedged, baby. Up, down, they don't care, they still make money. But they love downturns. Fools run to the government to give it more power and other peoples' money and guess what? They own the government! You give them exactly what they want. How is this hard for you to figure out? Or maybe you just don't want to after you and McOwen have been seen hoping and praying for the end of the world for so long?

I'm sorry. I missed the part where I said "a big economic downturn will hurt the perenially rich." Care to point that out for me?

I've been saying the exact opposite! They're preparing for it and also causing it so they can take over even more. I've been saying that, in so many words, for quite a while now.

See what I mean? Your extremism has clouded your ability to reason.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm sorry. I missed the part where I said "a big economic downturn will hurt the perenially rich." Care to point that out for me?

I've been saying the exact opposite! They're preparing for it and also causing it so they can take over even more. I've been saying that, in so many words, for quite a while now.

See what I mean? Your extremism has clouded your ability to reason.

Which is why you keep cheering for it, right? I'm well aware that the rich want to use economic downturn (or just the fear of it) to gain more wealth and control. That is my mantra. That is why I propose free markets. That is why I constantly tell people that they cannot possibly expect to use the force of government to try to screw over the rich because the rich own the government (and you're never going to get your government back). This is why I tell people that using government for forceful wealth re-distribution actually widens the gap between rich and poor because most of the redistributed wealth comes from the middle classes.
I'm not an extremist, conjur... now you're just trying to say that we believe the same things. Whatever, keep running away...

 

[Genx87]

This is why I tell people that using government for forceful wealth re-distribution actually widens the gap between rich and poor because most of the redistributed wealth comes from the middle classes.

This is something I dont think they fully understand. The only wealth redistribution you see is upwards, as in the rich get more from the middle and poor classes.

A prime example of this is the war on poverty. Since ~1966 have our poverty rates dimished at all? Nope, what has happened? The gap between rich and poor has widened. You would think after decades of obvious proof they would get it. But instead like the sheep they are they want to try and use the govt as a tool to redistribute wealth through taxation and govt programs that obviously end up benefitting the very people they hate.

But who knows maybe they are politicians who are part of the elite and recieve the benefit of this raping using the govt's hands.

 

[Vic]

I think I've finally figured conjur, McOwen, and crowd out. They didn't wake up to what's been going on until after 9/11 and the WMD lies. They think that what Bush & Co. is doing is something new and exclusive to the Republican party. It's not. This has been going on steadily for 100 years and more, no matter who has been in power.
As for myself, I predicted that something like 9/11 and the Iraq War would happen the day Bush was elected in 2000. The next step btw is a housing market downturn followed by a rash of foreclosures and a massive re-distribution of property wealth. Just like how it caused the Great Depression, the Fed once again kept rates artificially too low too long, then raised them too high too late. Watch and see, it works everytime. A free banking market would adjust promptly according to money supply and demand.

 

[Genx87]

I dont know if they woke up after 9-11, I think their ideology blinds them to the point they truely believe only Republicans do this.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is something I dont think they fully understand. The only wealth redistribution you see is upwards, as in the rich get more from the middle and poor classes.

A prime example of this is the war on poverty. Since ~1966 have our poverty rates dimished at all? Nope, what has happened? The gap between rich and poor has widened. You would think after decades of obvious proof they would get it. But instead like the sheep they are they want to try and use the govt as a tool to redistribute wealth through taxation and govt programs that obviously end up benefitting the very people they hate.

You can thank Reaganomics for that. There is no war on poverty any more. Reagan reversed that and more.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is something I dont think they fully understand. The only wealth redistribution you see is upwards, as in the rich get more from the middle and poor classes.

A prime example of this is the war on poverty. Since ~1966 have our poverty rates dimished at all? Nope, what has happened? The gap between rich and poor has widened. You would think after decades of obvious proof they would get it. But instead like the sheep they are they want to try and use the govt as a tool to redistribute wealth through taxation and govt programs that obviously end up benefitting the very people they hate.

You can thank Reaganomics for that. There is no war on poverty any more. Reagan reversed that and more.

I dont know if they woke up after 9-11, I think their ideology blinds them to the point they truely believe only Republicans do this.


Case in point right here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is something I dont think they fully understand. The only wealth redistribution you see is upwards, as in the rich get more from the middle and poor classes.

A prime example of this is the war on poverty. Since ~1966 have our poverty rates dimished at all? Nope, what has happened? The gap between rich and poor has widened. You would think after decades of obvious proof they would get it. But instead like the sheep they are they want to try and use the govt as a tool to redistribute wealth through taxation and govt programs that obviously end up benefitting the very people they hate.

You can thank Reaganomics for that. There is no war on poverty any more. Reagan reversed that and more.

No he didn't. Government spending dramatically increased during the Reagan period. That and his friendly speaking style is why Reagan won elections in huge landslides. "The Great Communicator" won them and bought them on both sides of the aisle. The President who made the greatest cuts in welfare since the "Great Society" began was Clinton. Clinton was the one who put time limits on welfare. Clinton was the one who created fascism-esque welfare-to-work programs that are essentially legalized slavery (the programs heavily criticized in Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"). Look it up yourself.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is something I dont think they fully understand. The only wealth redistribution you see is upwards, as in the rich get more from the middle and poor classes.

A prime example of this is the war on poverty. Since ~1966 have our poverty rates dimished at all? Nope, what has happened? The gap between rich and poor has widened. You would think after decades of obvious proof they would get it. But instead like the sheep they are they want to try and use the govt as a tool to redistribute wealth through taxation and govt programs that obviously end up benefitting the very people they hate.

You can thank Reaganomics for that. There is no war on poverty any more. Reagan reversed that and more.

No he didn't. Government spending dramatically increased during the Reagan period. That and his friendly speaking style is why Reagan won elections in huge landslides. "The Great Communicator" won them and bought them on both sides of the aisle. The President who made the greatest cuts in welfare since the "Great Society" began was Clinton. Clinton was the one who put time limits on welfare. Clinton was the one who created fascism-esque welfare-to-work programs that are essentially legalized slavery (the programs heavily criticized in Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"). Look it up yourself.

reagan cut welfare, rather gutted welfare and increasd spending for military, not social serivices, clinton gutted it also but it was pretty much mortally wounded from reagan already. Neither presidents were kind at all to social services. Granted clinton did not empty mental hospitals into the streets on a large scale. reagan was pretty cruel, but on a whole they both were pretty careless as far as the future of disadvantaged americans go.

reagan = slash welfare dramaticlly increase military dump many people onto the streets --increased homelessness and mentally disabled in streets
clinton = slash welfare and pay down debt racked up from overinflated military budgets and put a lot of displaced people in jail.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
reagan cut welfare, rather gutted welfare and increasd spending for military, not social serivices, clinton gutted it also but it was pretty much mortally wounded from reagan already.

So then, you admit that this phenomenon of cutting welfare and increasing the military is something that both parties do? Hmm... why do you suppose that is?

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have an interested tactic you're probably not aware of, rot. They trick you into giving them your money for some good and noble populist cause, and then they divert that money to their special interests so that they can trick you into giving them even more money the next time around. Government is the only corporation that gets rewarded for corruption and incompetence. If government incompetence leads to people getting killed on poorly-maintained highways, then government pleads for more money and you give it to them. If a business did the same, it would either be sued out of existence or collapse from loss of market share.

You ever read Orwell's book "Animal Farm," rot? Neo-60s "liberals" like you, like Clinton-era dittoheads, are the "sheep." You're rebelling for conformity.


edit: btw, don't miscontrue the facts to act like Reagan inherited a perfect economy. 1982 was the closest the US came to bankruptcy since 1938. Clinton OTOH inherited the "wonder years."

 

[Steeplerot]

You dontmake for a good debate by throwing sheep accusations around, I read animal farm and is it you ilk I see as the pigs, your point? I am aware that your knowledge of history and politics is spotty at best.

What is sad is I never have defended clinton's policys EVER in this forum, it is you following a herd mentality rolling over to corrupt government, just becasue they are corrupt pricks does not excuse them or make me want to be one too unlike you.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
[reagan cut welfare, rather gutted welfare and increasd spending for military, not social serivices, clinton gutted it also but it was pretty much mortally wounded from reagan already. Neither presidents were kind at all to social services. Granted clinton did not empty mental hospitals into the streets on a large scale. reagan was pretty cruel, but on a whole they both were pretty careless as far as the future of disadvantaged americans go.

reagan = slash welfare dramaticlly increase military dump many people onto the streets --increased homelessness and mentally disabled in streets
clinton = slash welfare and pay down debt racked up from overinflated military budgets and put a lot of displaced people in jail.

True, Clinton was just continuing the trend and trying to appease the corporate lobby. I grew up in NYC in the 80s. That place was ground zero for a lot of those homeless former mental patients. Thanks Reagan.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
reagan cut welfare, rather gutted welfare and increasd spending for military, not social serivices, clinton gutted it also but it was pretty much mortally wounded from reagan already.

So then, you admit that this phenomenon of cutting welfare and increasing the military is something that both parties do? Hmm... why do you suppose that is?

You're misquoting Steeplerot. Clinton used the money to pay down the debt not increase military spending. Remember the supposed "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You dontmake for a good debate by throwing sheep accusations around, I read animal farm and is it you ilk I see as the pigs, your point? I am aware that your knowledge of history and politics is spotty at best.

What is sad is I never have defended clinton's policys EVER in this forum, it is you following a herd mentality rolling over to corrupt government, just becasue they are corrupt pricks does not excuse them or make me want to be one too unlike you.

Engrish? Do you speak it? I'm not excusing government for one moment for being corrupt. Quite the opposite, I am condemning it. If you're going to accuse me of spotty knowledge in anything, you might want to figure out what I am saying first.

 

[Genx87]

You dontmake for a good debate by throwing sheep accusations around

This is going in my sig for future reference lmao

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dwcal
You're misquoting Steeplerot. Clinton used the money to pay down the debt not increase military spending. Remember the supposed "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War?

Clinton didn't pay down the debt or decrease military spending. He had one year with a minor budget surplus (caused by increased tax revenues from a booming economy) and defense spending increased during his administration by an average of 2.5% annually plus a $110 billion dollar phased-in increase in 1999.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
I think I've finally figured conjur, McOwen, and crowd out. They didn't wake up to what's been going on until after 9/11 and the WMD lies. They think that what Bush & Co. is doing is something new and exclusive to the Republican party. It's not. This has been going on steadily for 100 years and more, no matter who has been in power.
As for myself, I predicted that something like 9/11 and the Iraq War would happen the day Bush was elected in 2000. The next step btw is a housing market downturn followed by a rash of foreclosures and a massive re-distribution of property wealth. Just like how it caused the Great Depression, the Fed once again kept rates artificially too low too long, then raised them too high too late. Watch and see, it works everytime. A free banking market would adjust promptly according to money supply and demand.

Missed out on the S&L rip-off, did you? I know a couple of ex-banker guys around here who retireed on that scam.

Free banking market, LMAO! Never trust anyone driving a Cadillac. 😀

 

[Train]

Getting back to the OP, capitalism can never be wiped out. If the US were taken over tommorow and became the most totalitarian communist govt to ever exist, capitalism would instantly (or spontaneously?) present itself in the form of a black market. Black markets exist in every society that ever was. Usually the more restrictive the govt or ruling body, the larger the black market.