Re: Socialism and Capitalism

On Jul 22, 8:59=A0am, Topaz <mars1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price
>
> <nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > =A0I point out when you're lying, that's the extent of my "rudeness"
to
> >you.
>
> > =A0You're the one who keeps posting the same Nazi bull**** over and
> >over, and you're calling me a piece of crap? =A0The fact is that you
> >have
> >NEVER contributed anything original or thoughtful to any debate.
> >So why should I treat you like a contributor instead of a pest?
>
> > =A0Then why haven't you EVER posted a counterargument?
>
> You are completely full of crap. Here is proof:
>
> >> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> >> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
>
> >What does that mean exactly? (Price)
>
> =A0 Capitalism is supply and demand. It's against having any laws or
> programs that might favor people over material. (Topaz)
>
  Material has no rights under capitalism and people do, that sounds
like
favouring people over material to me.  What you really mean is that it
objects to laws and programs that favour those that want to take the
material from those that own it.  You are however too dishonest to
admit it.

> > =A0Capitalism doesn't put a value on
> >anything, people do. =A0Capitalism is only a method to transmit
> >information on what people value. =A0It has no values of it's own,
>
> =A0 Exactly, it has no values.
>
  So what?  People have values and it's their values, not those of the
social/
economic system that are im****tant.  Oh and BTW you just admitted
that
you lied when you said it values goods over people.

> > and that's good. =A0If "the system" has values seperate from the
values
> > of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
> > and diminished. =A0That is truely not putting value (special or
> > otherwise) on people.
>
> >> Capitalism is
> >> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
> >> chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
> >> and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
> >> value than the potatoes or the salt.
>
> > =A0They have no more value for the company. =A0They have value for and
> >to each other and their loved ones. =A0I don't know about you but I
> >don't =A0feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.

> Douglas Reed wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0 "Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the
> English in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely
> strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth - not in gold bars
> in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift
> and energy of the work people, the conditions of life they enjoy.
> =A0 =A0Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the
> factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room,
> recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is
> needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social
> conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind which you
> lack."
>
  So you quote a Nazi about how well off people were under Hitler,
which
doesn't address the point at all.  This is how I know you have no
counterargument.
Oh and BTW Germany had routine goods shortages under Hitler and was
going
even broker than it already was.

> About Douglas Reed:
> "I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and
> author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected
> before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled
> and completely forgotten person. =A0
> Why was he "forgotten"? =A0
> It was simply because he wrote about "The Jewish Question!" =A0
> International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem
> with total censor****p, so that his new books could no longer be
> printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores
> and even from the library shelves. =A0

  Well no, they didn't.  They simply didn't pay to have his crap
published.
There's a difference between not sup****ting someone and censoring
them.
<snip nazi bull****>
>
> >> And they consider it good to pay
> >> they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
>
> > =A0And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
> > it's chips. =A0If they don't like it they can sell their chips or
their
> > labour to someone else. =A0That is because they and I have values and
> > are free to pursue them.
>
> =A0 It's true that Capitalism is "fair". Consider the guy who invented
> the car and all the millions of people who benefit from that who don't
> know the first thing mechanics. In America something like 2% of the
> people have 95% of the wealth or whatever. I forget the actual
> figures. Some of this was dishonest, but much of it was from producing
> things, like microsoft software.
>
> =A0 =A0People who start businesses and create things are in fact
superior
> In all fairness there should be the few very rich and the many very
> poor and that is what capitalism produces. But here is the point -
> what good does it do them to have billions of dollars?

  Well that's their problem not yours.  What bad does it do you for
them
to have a billion dollars.  I'll tell you at least on thing that
having a billion
dollars is useful for, making investment decisions on that scale.
There are
people who just plain WANT to create a billion dollar business doing
useful things.  It's a good thing some of them can.

> What more can they own or do, than if they merely had millions of
dollars=
?
>=A0Compare that to the difference between having enough to afford shelter
=
and
> being out in the street. The guy who invented the car did a lot to
> make things better for people. Replacing capitalism would also make
> things better for people.

  Assertion is not evidence.  And come to think of it, it's the same
assertion
you had several other times.
>
> =A0 Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy.

  Well no, they do agree they just don't think there's anything bad
about
that.

> They say a person can take their job for $5 an hour or they will find
som=
eone
> else to take the job. It doesn't matter if they are making billions of
do=
llars.
> It's all perfectly fair in their minds.

  And what is unfair about it?  Why do you deserve the job more than
they
guy who will work for $5 an hour?  You are as usual mistaking things
you
don't like for things that are unfair.

> And they are totally against "big government" doing anything to stop
them=
..

  Believers in capitalism do believe that it's wrong to use government
violence
to constrain people's legitimate choices.  How is that bad?

> We can put an end to
> their pathetic ideas without having any nonsense ideas like Communism.
> Obviously we should have private property. And viewing business
> leaders as enemies is also ridiculous.

 So you should treat them as friends that you threaten and steal from?

> But capitalism is a horrible
> idea and should go as extinct as the dinosaurs. In the future we have
> should advanced economics designed to make things good for people.
>
  Again, simple assertion with no evidence.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0According to capitalist theory people must compete to see
w=
ho
> >> will work for the least pennies per hour.
>
> > =A0No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
> >more valuable to their employer.
>
> >> They say everyone must
> >> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
> >> the fewest pennies.
>
> > =A0And what is the alternative? =A0That the people in Mexico and China
> >not be allowed to compete with us? =A0What do they eat while they are
> >forbidden this right?
>
> =A0 =A0We should not go down to their level. Every nation should do the
> best it can for it's people and not have capitalism.
>
  Why should every "nation" do the best for it's people?  Why should
worry
whether the people I benefit are on one side of the border or another?
What
is a nation anyway?   Why should I have to ignore the benefits of
having
Mexicans and Chinese compete to sell me things simply because some
of my "countrymen" would like to use force to make their lives easier?
>
> >> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> >> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
>
> > =A0Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
> >system.
>
> =A0 At one time it may have allowed most people to survive. But with the
> machines we have today that is no longer the case.
>
  Again, assertion.  In fact we see that it's in the absence of
capitalism that
poverty is worse and where there are more machines LESS people are
starving.
>
> >> At least the
> >> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
> >> of starvation that is fine too.
>
> >And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
>
> =A0Having a minimum wage for one thing is not having capitalism. Not
> that a minimum wage is exactly my plan but the point is that the USA
> and countries like that are certainly not capitalist, and people do
> starve and die in real capitalism.
>
  Really?  Where?   The places people are starving are profoundly
socialist,
including National Socialist.  Plenty of people starved in Germany
under Hitler.
>
> >> You can always get more people. If
> >> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
> >> need to die off.
>
> > Which never happens. =A0There is always more to do in a capitalist
> >society because there is always new things to invest in.

<snip crap you've posted before that address my point.>

> >> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> >> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
> > =A0Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
> >could find, helping the poor. =A0He reinvested his money in the
> >business continually, raising productivity and thus demand for
> >labour, helping the poor. =A0He gave a job to one who couldn't
> >get one elsewhere, helping, who was it again? =A0oh yes, the
> >poor. =A0He didn't waste his money on frivolous expensive things,
> >which would have diverted capital and labour from producing
> >things neccesary and cheap. =A0This makes things neccesary
> >and cheap even cheaper. =A0Who buys those things? =A0Mostly the poor.
>
> =A0 Spin, see the movie.
>
  Everything I said about Scrooge was true, and was in the movie that
I saw
and the original book.  This is not "spin" it is the truth about the
character
Scrooge, he did more good for the poor before his "reform" than any
character
in the book did.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The apologists for =A0the Scrooges correctly point out
=
that
> >> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
> >> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
> >> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
>
> > =A0Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
> >it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
> >That's a return of 0.9567404% annualised.
>
> =A0 For one thing investing should be abolished.

  And that won't have any negative effect on the economy.  Moron.

> Business loans should be from the government and at zero interest.

  Ok, for a start why should I have to beg the government for
investment
money when there are people with savings willing to lend it to me or
invest in my project?   Why is it a good idea to have the financial
survival
of all businesses in the hands of the government?'
  And why should I get a business loan at zero interest?  Presumably I
would take a loan because it benefits me, why shouldn't the people who
had to give the use of their money and risk me losing it have some of
the benefits of them doing so?

> Banks are parasites:

  As currently constituted yes, but that's because the GOVERNMENT
sucks money from us to sup****t them via inflation.  There is nothing
parasitic about lending money at interest since the value of what you
immediately buy is worth more than the total payments you make.
If it were not you wouldn't borrow at interest and people do.
<snip arguments that make the fiat money system look bad but have no
implications for lending money at interest.>

> >> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a
> >> reasonable share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
>
> > =A0Yes. =A0Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
> >who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.
>
> =A0 Someone must be reasonable and it is certainly not the capitalists.
>
  Well the capitalists were making consensual trades and weren't
forcing
anyone to obey their definition of reasonable.  That seems reasonable
to
me.  Why is it a good idea that someone's definition of "reasonable"
should
control all industrial capacity?  Why should I worry what others think
is a
reasonable profit?  What business is it of their's?
>
> >> =A0 In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far
> >> that all the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering
> >> food and all automated. You would think everything would be
> >> great, but under capitalism the people would starve because
> >> there wouldn't be enough jobs.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other
=
needy
> >> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
> >> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?
>
> > =A0Enough. =A0Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay
> > for charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike
> > people being poor. =A0When the government takes over poverty this
> > declines rapidly.
>
> =A0We should pay our fair share.
>
  Note again you do not address my point.  What is a "fair share"?
Why
should the government have the power to define it?
>
> >> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would
> >> have to pay for everything while most people would not pay
> >> one thin dime.
>
> > =A0Where's you evidence for this? =A0Most people are charitable.
>
> =A0 Would you want to pay more than your fair share or less?
>
  I would want to pay what I define as my fair share, as everyone
would.
Since you did not define what you call your fair share I have no
idea what you actually mean.
>
> >> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
>
> > =A0No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
> >see as fair. =A0If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
>
> >> It is part of having civilization.
>
> > =A0Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses
> >than you.
>
> The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
> lie.

  And yet I'm able to point out inconsistencies in your "truth" and
you're
not able to point out inconsistencies in my "lie".  Strange that.
<snip lies By Shaun Walker which have nothing to do with the
point.>

> >> =A0 We have many laws that =A0make things better for people.
> >> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
> >> hours.
>
> > =A0And how does that make it better for me? =A0Suppose I want to
> > work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
> > worth the higher rate? =A0How is forbidding me to make a trade
> > a benefit?
>
> =A0People are exploited in capitalism.
>
  And that's a good thing.  Exploitation is defined as using a
resource
and people are (amoung other things) a resource.  If people were not
exploited they would be worse off.
>
> >> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
>
> > =A0No there aren't.
>
> >> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
> >> to be as =A0greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
> >> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
>
> > =A0Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
> >capitalism.
>
> >> Capitalism is bad for people.
>
> > =A0And Nazism is good?

<snip more lies about how good the economy was under the Nazis>
  So if the economy was so good, why did they need to kill so many
people?
>
> > =A0Note that you posted this all before as "Polaris" and "Neptune3"
> >and I refuted it before. =A0Yet you still post it, verbatim. =A0Why?
>
> =A0 The "refute" part is only in your mind.
>
  No it's real, and you're too much of a coward to address my
arguments.

> >I've clearly shown why it's rubbish so why keep posting it?
> >Note: everything I wrote after "capitalism and communism are both
> >bad" is a cut and paste of arguments that you didn't refute last time.
>
> =A0 I'm saving this for pastes too.
>
  Yeah cause you don't have an original thought even about the fact
that
you don't have original thoughts.
>
> > =A0No you don't you cut and paste because you have nothing original
> > to say. =A0I know this because you don't even defend the rubbish
> > you do post.
>
> =A0Your post is a waste of bandwidth. You are the one posting rubbish.


  Then prove me wrong about one thing.  Just one.  If my post is a
waste
of bandwidth then so is responding to it with the same crap you tried
before.