D
Deleted member 88
Guest
“Everything bad about capitalism wasn’t real capitalism”.
Amazing.
Amazing.
And yet more evidence you have no idea what capitalism means. When you put money on an investment, you have a property right to that investment being conducted according to the agreement, just like exchange money in exchange for labor entitles you to the labor done correctly as agreed upon. What Ponzi and Madoff did was theft, which is against a system held by property rights.Nothing in the capitalist system requires “holding up the end of the bargain”-that’s an issue of social trust and individual character. Cheating people is quite profitable so long as you don’t get caught or your too powerful or well protected for your victims to retaliate.
So this is changing the goal posts. You said forests were going away, I showed they were coming back, and now you're trying to change it to another metric.Are you paying attention? Species are going extinct, the Chinese are fucking hunting Jaguars, because there is a market for their superstitious retarded aphrodisiacs. Palm plantations are burning jungles in Indonesia, and fisheries worldwide are being depleted.
I get it. I mean, in this case it works, as its obviously not capitalism and Madoff and Ponzi are the exception, not the rule. The difference between this and communism is that I have countless examples of Capitalism working.Didn't mean to be rude and wanted to explain my Haha, it just really tickled me that your response was "That wasn't real capitalism." I don't think I've seen that one turned around before.
“Everything bad about capitalism wasn’t real capitalism”.
Amazing.
Literally the exact same reasoning could be applied to Party officials leading swanky lifestyles and extracting money from the workers in the Soviet Union. Madoff and Ponzi engaged in actions that were intended to profit them personally. Companies engage in fundamentally the same behavior. Just on a larger scale.And yet more evidence you have no idea what capitalism means. When you put money on an investment, you have a property right to that investment being conducted according to the agreement, just like exchange money in exchange for labor entitles you to the labor done correctly as agreed upon. What Ponzi and Madoff did was theft, which is against a system held by property rights.
I’m referring to the environment as a whole. Not just deforestation. As important as that is. The environment is being ripped to pieces.So this is changing the goal posts. You said forests were going away, I showed they were coming back, and now you're trying to change it to another metric.
Madoff just so happened to get caught. What do you think about all the Wall Street wizards who don’t get caught? Rockefeller at least invested in something concrete, robber baron that he was. Madoff and the financial industry are outright parasites. That do not produce anything of value, and outright destroy companies they purchase that don’t get those 50% returns on investment.Calling Madoff a capitalist is like calling Rockefeller a communist. It makes no goddamn sense. He's a thief, violating the property rights of those who held a contract with him.
Exactly. Just because the party officials were pursuing personal profit doesn't make them capitalists, because they stole the money. The same applies to Madoff. I'm glad we can agree neither is a capitalist.Literally the exact same reasoning could be applied to Party officials leading swanky lifestyles and extracting money from the workers in the Soviet Union
No, its fundamentally different, because what they do has consent, unlike with Madoff.Companies engage in fundamentally the same behavior. Just on a larger scale.
So having to work is now the problem? That's not just a problem with capitalism, but with every economic system.. Well when you find the magical system where people don't have to work, please call your representative. I'm sure at least AOC is interested. All I hear is whining that being able a NEET isn't possible long term.Capitalism is also spiritually destructive. It has torn apart families, and has broken men and women’s social lives. How can you think of God, community, and your role in the greater Plan when your grinding 9-5 and being yelled at by your boss because your assignment wasn’t written in handwriting he likes? Think about all the children that suffered due to the parents working-and ended up not getting the upbringing they needed. Think about all the alcoholism, and misery.
Way to miss the point? Your saying Madoff and Ponzi weren’t good capitalists, I was saying the party bosses aren’t good communists.Exactly. Just because the party officials were pursuing personal profit doesn't make them capitalists, because they stole the money. The same applies to Madoff. I'm glad we can agree neither is a capitalist.
Hmm...consent. I’m sure those people who got hooked on opioids would be so glad to hear that their deaths/family members deaths were entirely okay because they consented to it. If I sell a child poison, and the child consents-under capitalism I have done no wrong. Because capitalism is not an ethical system and isn’t concerned with ethics at all.No, its fundamentally different, because what they do has consent, unlike with Madoff.
Thats why Capitalism is moral, btw, because it cares about consent.
Yes, because raising children, investing in your religion/community/spending time with your spouse, and living a full life is just being a NEET.So having to work is now the problem? That's not just a problem with capitalism, but with every economic system.. Well when you find the magical system where people don't have to work, please call your representative. I'm sure at least AOC is interested. All I hear is whining that being able a NEET isn't possible long term.
WOOSH.Way to miss the point? Your saying Madoff and Ponzi weren’t good capitalists, I was saying the party bosses aren’t good communists.
...Children can't consent. As for people hooked on opioids as adults, yes, they are at fault for getting there, but there's definitely an open question about whether an addict can really consent to buying drugs. I'd edge towards yes, as you consented to end up in the addicted state, but others might say no, until they realize coffee is addictive as well. At what point is it no longer a consensual exchange for a coffee addict to buy another cup? It's an interesting question.Hmm...consent. I’m sure those people who got hooked on opioids would be so glad to hear that their deaths/family members deaths were entirely okay because they consented to it. If I sell a child poison, and the child consents-under capitalism I have done no wrong. Because capitalism is not an ethical system and isn’t concerned with ethics at all.
If you aren't working, then yeah. It literally is. You are Not in Employment, Education, or Training. Why the hell should someone pay you their hard earned money so you can have a family if you don't want to work?Yes, because raising children, investing in your religion/community/spending time with your spouse, and living a full life is just being a NEET.
Holy Hades, it’s amazing to see conservatives worship Mammon.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though.
In every other system you don't get the vacation or any incentive to come back to work besides fewer beatings. The capitalist employer gets you to come to work on your vacation with bribery and you get to keep the bribe the non capitalist employer just screams "row harder" and whips you till you die even if you do everything he says.capitalism is calls from your employer on vacation at 10:00 PM because that project is just so much more important than your family.
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".Madoff just so happened to get caught. What do you think about all the Wall Street wizards who don’t get caught? Rockefeller at least invested in something concrete, robber baron that he was. Madoff and the financial industry are outright parasites. That do not produce anything of value, and outright destroy companies they purchase that don’t get those 50% returns on investment.
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".
Like, the monarchies you seem to worship so much weren't any better under on the environment, nor were communist societies.
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".
Like, the monarchies you seem to worship so much weren't any better under on the environment, nor were communist societies.
The merchant guilds were to a certain extend a formalization of relationship between regulation and rent seeking. Regulations are always heavily influenced by rent seeking, which is why they need to be minimized.Except monarchies at least allowed trade, and in fact it was merchant guilds which introduced most of limitations on trade, not monarchies themselves.
OMG, we have someone who apparently doesn't know who Friedrich Ebert was!
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".
Which one? They all produce value.One of these is not like the others.
Merchants do a valuable job of exchanging commodities between individuals and their makers in return for payment, they do not produce 'goods' or 'services' in of themselves rather they provide a 'service'.As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".
Merchants do a valuable job of exchanging commodities between individuals and their makers in return for payment, they do not produce 'goods' or 'services' in of themselves rather they provide a 'service'.
Traders are the same, it's just that they exchange 'goods' for 'goods' rather than in currency payments.
Investors provide a cash influx to up and coming of the first category and then sit back and earn a profit doing jack all, the only risk involved being losing their money should their venture fail provided the game hasn't already been rigged by them.
Guess which of the three I love the most?