Capitalism starved as many people as Mao and Stalin combined. NOT PN

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 8, 2019 03:45
VIEWED: 9831
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 3, 2010 4:07 PM

Discussed this before, in partial detail, as I posted massacre after genocide after atrocity, all committed in the name of "freedom"... but actually for the benefit of capitalism.

At the time, I touched on capitalism's complicity in causing starvation: the policies of the World Bank and IMF in deciding that some countries - like Haiti- would be "better off" serving as reservoirs of cheap labor, the devastating effects on local agriculture of "free trade", the interest that all corporations have in supporting corrupt leaders (that includes in the USA) which create massive poverty and desperation. Turns out, there's more.

Geezer, Wulf, and all you "free market" believers, read more if you dare be discomfited in your absolute belief that corporations are manna from heaven.

How Goldman Sachs Caused a 'Silent Mass Murder,' Gambling on Starvation in the Developing World

Quote:

By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. Here's the rest. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world - Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more - have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world.

It starts with an apparent mystery. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people - mostly children - couldn't afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it "a silent mass murder", entirely due to "man-made actions."

yes, I remember this, because my broker was trying to get me interested in food commodities.. specifically DBA.... http://dbfunds.db.com/dba/index.aspx

Quote:
Earlier this year I was in Ethiopia, one of the worst-hit countries, and people there remember the food crisis as if they had been struck by a tsunami. "My children stopped growing," a woman my age called Abiba Getaneh, told me. "I felt like battery acid had been poured into my stomach as I starved. I took my two daughters out of school and got into debt. If it had gone on much longer, I think my baby would have died."

Most of the explanations we were given at the time have turned out to be false. It didn't happen because supply fell: the International Grain Council says global production of wheat actually increased during that period, for example. It isn't because demand grew either: as Professor Jayati Ghosh of the Centre for Economic Studies in New Delhi has shown, demand actually fell by 3 per cent. Other factors - like the rise of biofuels, and the spike in the oil price - made a contribution, but they aren't enough on their own to explain such a violent shift.

To understand the biggest cause, you have to plough through some concepts that will make your head ache - but not half as much as they made the poor world's stomachs ache.

For over a century, farmers in wealthy countries have been able to engage in a process where they protect themselves against risk. Farmer Giles can agree in January to sell his crop to a trader in August at a fixed price. If he has a great summer, he'll lose some cash, but if there's a lousy summer or the global price collapses, he'll do well from the deal. When this process was tightly regulated and only companies with a direct interest in the field could get involved, it worked.

Then, through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into "derivatives" that could be bought and so

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

WHOZIT

Saturday, July 3, 2010 4:41 PM

So companys want to kill the people who either work for them or buy there products? Who's going to make or buy there stuff?

FYI; Goldman Sachs gave mega bucks to Barry and the Democrats over the years, don't belive me, look it up.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 3, 2010 4:47 PM

Quote:
Who's going to make or buy there stuff?

AHA! The man discovers the cause of economic depressions! And only 150 years late!

GEEZER

Saturday, July 3, 2010 6:10 PM

Congratulations. You found that the man the Daily Telegraph considers "...one of the most influential people on the left in Britain." thinks capitalism is at fault. Isn't that sorta like the old "To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail" cliche?

Depending on your bent, you can find someone to state authoritatively that starvation is caused by pretty much anything you want it to be.

It could be:

Bad Policy.
http://www.policynetwork.net/environment/media/famine-also-caused-bad-
policies

Corruption In Government.
http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/alrc_statements/417/

Socialism.
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/impoverishment-by-the-
left/

Planned Economies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010
061802837.html

Energy prices.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Skyrocketing_energy_prices_c
aused_mass_starvation_in_the_1970s_too.html

Global Warming.
http://globalwarming.com/2009/03/secondary-effects-of-global-warming/

Global Cooling
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/global-warming-rage-fuels-glo
bal-starvation/

Global Dimming.
www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming

Meat Consumption
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x81vd6_food-crisis-caused-by-meat-con
sumpt

Running Out of Petroleum.
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/610/66/

Biofuel Scam.
http://www.ladyclip.com/videos/play/103938627/

Rats.
http://www.gfa.org/news/articles/rats-causing-famine-in-myanmar/

God's Wrath.
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/ethiopia/godswrath.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 3, 2010 7:19 PM

That's the most convoluted, intellectually bankrupt and mindless bit of nonsense devised by - anyone.

It fits right along w/ this nonsense...

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 3, 2010 7:38 PM

Lemme boil it down for the morons, Siggy.

Capitalism = import the loot, export the waste and consequences.

Basically a form of Piracy, always has been.
It is what it is - and that's WHY I use a very different set of terms, that's WHY I say "private enterprise" instead of "free market" cause that "free market" has been backed by government guns and monopoly sponsorship and support since the fuckin Whiskey Rebellion, and brought of the horror of a Civil War besides.

Tell me, do you have a CHOICE in your local power company, is there ANY COMPETITION WHATSOEVER, do you have any real control over the rate you pay ?

Or is it a state-backed monopoly with a little baksheesh on the side in exchange for not being too obviously rapacious, well, on your bill at least, they suck the rest up outta tax breaks and grants and all kinds of shit which if they DID put on your bill where you could see it, would start a pocket revolt in short order.

Fuck Capitalism, for it is The Blind God.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 3, 2010 7:41 PM

Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand.

Those who are against either are basically scum of the Earth.

Period.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, July 3, 2010 7:50 PM

Signy, I respectfully disagree: PN DID starve as many people as Mao and Stalin combined!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

JONGSSTRAW

Saturday, July 3, 2010 8:03 PM

Signy has for years maintained a consistent love of socialism and a hatred of capitalism. Those gents in the title also lined millions of their own citizens up against the wall and had them shot. To even try to compare an economic system to those two ruthless beasts in any way seems silly and desperate.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, July 3, 2010 8:44 PM

Isn't the comparison being made between consequences (number of people starved to death), not so much intentions or innate character? Signy's hatred is due to the former and only secondarily leads her to presume upon the latter, no? If the consequences of a thing are so heinous, in time is it not natural to doubt the intentions of those who practice it?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 3, 2010 8:52 PM

Frem

And socialism ISN'T??!?

Thank you sig for being willing to discuss this at all. I'm sure that the right wins this one hands down, but first let me say this:

Capitalism is an inherently corrupt system. It's in the name "capital." the capital in capitalism refers to the extant capital which measures the power within the system. Since around 2000 BC this has existed in a persistent form, which means that the wealthy families and concerns to pass on their power generation adore generation to create power bases who did no work themselves to acquire their power, because they could inherit. Henry Ford really nailed this one, and went into far more depth about it than I care to.

A true free market would be balanced, decentralized, and base on merit, and would rapidly erode any persistent capital within the system.

In the persistent system, the new moneyed classes can use their wealth to take over and control other concerns, (especially after clintons deregulation.) such super-concerns can become imperialist monopolies, knocking out corporations and trying to lock citizens into using their services, and paying their fees, and in an absolute monopoly, set the fees and conditions how they see fit. If we carry this to the absurd extreme, a theoretical super-monopoly could influence govt not just to favor their business, but to force everyone to be their customers. In such a situation, there would be no recourse, and people could be forced to patronize said concern, pay what it asked, and be punished, even killed for failing to obey. The concern could repeal any environmental or civil liberties statute by order of it's board through the politicians allied with the concern, provided there were no other competing concerns. Without any competition at all, there would be just one super-monopoly of everything. It would be able to take what it wanted, and do as it pleased. Laws that stood in its way would be neutralized. Financial concerns absorbed or shut down, the environment raped, and the people enslaved or killed.

Socialism IS that super-monopoly. It appoints itself absolute with all of the power that this implies. It is the automatically the hypothetical worst case of capitalism. If those are the only two options, the choice is obvious.

GEEZER

Saturday, July 3, 2010 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Lemme boil it down for the morons, Siggy.

Capitalism = import the loot, export the waste and consequences.

Strange. No definition of capitalism I can find in standard reference is similar to this.

Merriam-Webster:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Worldwebnet:
an economic system based on private ownership of capital.

Wikipedia:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through a planned economy; and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses. Capitalism also refers to the process of capital accumulation.

Economics Glossary:
Economic system in which property is privately owned and goods are privately produced.It is sometimes referred to as the private enterprise system.

UConn:
an economic (not political or governmental) system that favors and requires a free market, competition, and private (as opposed to governmental) ownership of the means of production (i.e., businesses). Capitalism is encouraged among developed countries because it harnesses competition, innovation, and consumer spending to fuel economic growth. Capitalism is sometimes resisted in lesser developed countries (LDCs) because poverty and corruption often prevent capitalism from working properly and, it is felt by some, often makes these conditions worse.

Quote:
Basically a form of Piracy, always has been.
It is what it is - and that's WHY I use a very different set of terms, that's WHY I say "private enterprise" instead of "free market" cause that "free market" has been backed by government guns and monopoly sponsorship and support since the fuckin Whiskey Rebellion, and brought of the horror of a Civil War besides.

Nor is backing by government and guns Capitalism. It's government.

Quote:
Tell me, do you have a CHOICE in your local power company, is there ANY COMPETITION WHATSOEVER, do you have any real control over the rate you pay ?
Or is it a state-backed monopoly with a little baksheesh on the side in exchange for not being too obviously rapacious, well, on your bill at least, they suck the rest up outta tax breaks and grants and all kinds of shit which if they DID put on your bill where you could see it, would start a pocket revolt in short order.

State-backed monopoly - or state-owned monopoly, isn't capitalism. If anything, it's - by the old book definition - Socialism; ownership of the means of production by the state.

BTW. Does anyone have capital - money or goods - invested in your security outfit? If so, then they're capitalists, by most any standard definition.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, July 3, 2010 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If those are the only two options, the choice is obvious.

They aren't the only two options, though, are they?

While the title of the thread may be overtly confrontational, the quoted article merely asks for more regulation, which seems like a good response.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 3, 2010 10:06 PM

Rouka

Agreed. But the spin is incorrect, Geezer is right. The idea that Cameron is the greatest threat to the world's poor is absurd.

Heres a little side story: what we have here is a situation in Ethiopia. It's not new. It's been like that for decades. The recent Ethiopian problem was directly caused by hhe implementation by the communist govt. If ethiopia of a plan which was created by Chairman Mao for centralized food distribution, a plan abandoned in china because of the adverse effects on the population, effects which critics say that the govt. Of Ethiopia Actually wanted to create, as another genocide on minor it populations in ethiopia, their sixth such holocaust since the first communist revolution (soviet socialist) overthrew haile selassie, later overthrown by Chinese communists in the early 1990s.

What bugs me is that anyone can look at a true disaster of socialism like Ethiopia and say " this is capitalism, we need socialism!" either doesn't unrstand the nature of the problem, is stone stupid, or is lying.

I agree with him on deregulation, but I sincerely doubt that speculators had any effect on the global food supply. Central food distribution programs are almost always to blame here, and while I credit the idea that globalists might try to implement such a thing on a world scale, however that is not the argument being presented here. The argument as it stands is not credible regardless of it's source.

I agree overall on the lack of choice. If there were additional choices they would be worth considering. Myself, I would prefer a different kind of free market. But new choices are not really part of the argument. It's a pro-socialist argument using a socialism created problem, trying to invert it, shift the blame, and then propose, ultimately. Socialism as a solution. It's an absurd exercise in circular logic.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 3, 2010 10:49 PM

Sig,

Additionally, I have this issue with the story: it has to prove that the event happened at all before we can investigate any causes.

The story outlines an event that starts in late '06 and ends in early '08 which is to say almost the entire event took place in 2007.

That said, lets discount Ethiopia for two reasons: 1) the Ethiopian famine started in 2005 and went on to 2010' and 2) the famine has a known cause, the govt that ruled the country from 2005 to 2010 enacted a radical food control program. Being communist and not part of the free market we can basically rule out outside economic forces.

That said, I search on the famine of 2007, and I did not find this event. Here's some famine data I did find:

Share of hungry people in the developing world[8][9]
Year 1970 1980 1990 2005 2007
Xxxx 37 % 28 % 20 % 16 % 17 %

not convinced this worldwide event actually happened.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 3, 2010 11:31 PM

capitalism, in itself, doesnt garauntee liberty, freedom, or prosperity. look at China, its a communist regime with a relatively capitalist business climate. did capitalism insure political freedom? no. but as a mechanism of the market, it was sufficient to bring millions of people out of deep, grinding poverty. on the other hand, show me an affluent, prosperous, or even relatively free soceity that is not capitalist?

id like to know what your alternative to capitalism is. to me, there is no greater principle then voluntary, mutual consent- the foundation of capitalism. show me an example of a command and control society that has allowed for greater prosperity, and given the avg human being a greater standard of living then capitlaism? it doesnt exist

so on this 4th of July, you liberty haters can take your views of coercion and central planning, and stick'em where the sun dont shine

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 3, 2010 11:59 PM

Antimason

Agreed, but I would say, the free market economy.

Capitalism can exist without a free market. The world bank is not a free market, nor is the federal reserve, or the IMF, yet they are all capitalist. If I had to define capitalism I would say, besides reliant on capital, it is a system in which ownership is defined in monetary dollar terms. This does allow the issuers of currency to own other peoples ideas. I think my economic model would be more distributist meritocracy, with ownership determined by property rights, not capital leverage. In short, I'd end the buyout.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 3, 2010 11:59 PM

Antimason

Agreed, but I would say, the free market economy.

Capitalism can exist without a free market. The world bank is not a free market, nor is the federal reserve, or the IMF, yet they are all capitalist. If I had to define capitalism I would say, besides reliant on capital, it is a system in which ownership is defined in monetary dollar terms. This does allow the issuers of currency to own other peoples ideas. I think my economic model would be more distributist meritocracy, with ownership determined by property rights, not capital leverage. In short, I'd end the buyout.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 4, 2010 12:11 AM

What, and it never occurred to you WHY imma Kropotkinist-Anarchist there, DT ?

As for putting a spike in the primary flaw of that religious philosophy known as Capitalism...

And I say religious philosophy cause yanno, in THEORY, it could work, if people weren't human, if nothing unexpected ever happened, if it were not possible to cheat the system, if, if, if...

But it sure as shit ain't never ever once worked that way in practice - a viable system has enough slack in it to account for stuff like that, which is the flaw of BOTH Keyesian and Austrian economics.

But if you wanted to put a spike in the worst flaw of capitalism, that's EASY...

Give money an expiration date - use it or lose it.
Say ninety days from coming into your possession, for example.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

GEEZER

Sunday, July 4, 2010 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
capitalism, in itself, doesnt garauntee liberty, freedom, or prosperity. look at China, its a communist regime with a relatively capitalist business climate. did capitalism insure political freedom? no. but as a mechanism of the market, it was sufficient to bring millions of people out of deep, grinding poverty. on the other hand, show me an affluent, prosperous, or even relatively free soceity that is not capitalist?

Exactly.

The capitalist economic system is a tool, just like a bulldozer or a gun. It can be used for good or ill. Just because someone destroyed your local woods with a bulldozer, that doesn't make bulldozers as a class evil. Just because governments use guns to subjugate their citizens doesn't make guns evil.

Capitalism (unlike socialism, which by definition needs the government to be involved in ownership of the means of production) can operate in many governmental environments: democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, etc. It just needs the ability for folks to invest their capital - be it money, goods, land, etc. - in what they consider an enterprise that will give them a return on their investment. If government gets involved in such a way as to skew the odds of any particular group being successful, then it's government that is responsible for any wrongdoing that occurs.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:04 AM

Frem

Yeah, already there. I guess I just didn't post it here, including the religion part: in gold we trust. It is a religious belief. Gold doesn't really have value, and I'm damn sure that paper abstractly representing it or computer code abstractly representing paper doesn't. Ive come up with some real nice mechanisms for expiring money. One of the key elements is stealth. It can never appear that you are designing a superior economic system. If they don't shut you down they will use their extNt persistent capital to take over your new economic model.

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:32 AM

Geezer, weren't you the one who supposed that the videos of cops beating peaceful protesters at the G20 could "somehow" be fake? So the run-up in food prices wasn't due to speculation, despite all evidence? Just like the crazy run-up in gas prices in 2008 wasn't due to speculation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg

Yeah. Right.

All you ever due is obfuscate, minimize, twist, and in general set aide obvious fact and common sense. Why should I... or anyone here... pay the slightest attention to your whinging and apologism, when you are clearly as unbalanced as rappy?

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:55 AM

DT, I have discounted Ethiopia, because it was a specific example of a generalized phenomenon of agricultural speculation. But it WAS a generalized phenomenon. The runup agricultural commodity futures led to increased starvation and hunger, political instability (in India for example), the closing of borders to agricultural exports as governments tried to stabilize prices, etc etc.

I followed agricultural commodities and the fallout very closely during that period. I believed... and still do... that the dollar is going to drop, so I'm always on the lookout for alternate holdings. My opinion is that, as N American and European economic activity is moribund (due to regressive taxation and lack of planning) and that real investment is at a near standstill, the only way to "make money on money" is speculation. (That, and illegal activities.... the end stage of any economic depression). The trick is to be speculating in whatever it is the ultra-wealthy are speculating in, but to be there FIRST, not to get sold the leavings while the market collapses and the ultra-rich bail out.

So BTW here's a tip from me: Get out of the stock market.

But unlike rappy, I DO have a day job and a sick family, and I can't sit on a market 24-7 and play small swings. So I play the long waves: investments that will make good in a year or two or five, but I'm VERY flexible in my options. I did very well in real estate, foreign currency and gold. I'm currently looking into foreign real estate. I'm not naive, nor am I am all-theory newbie or a moony new-ager. Take it from me that I was tracking events because I was looking VERY CLOSELY at being one of the horrible futures speculators of the article, and the ONLY thing that stopped me was the timing.

The speculation was real, it was happening, and it led to horrible consequences.

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:59 AM

Quote:
Signy has for years maintained a consistent love of socialism and a hatred of capitalism.

Being anti-capitalist doesn't necessarily mean being pro-socialist. I have started many many threads about doing something different. I'm sorely disappointed that you would have forgotten. I thought you were more of a realist than that.

PIRATENEWS

Sunday, July 4, 2010 4:34 AM

"Capitalism" is defined as MONEYISM, or rather, loaning money at interest. Banking/usuary/loansharking are illegal according to Christian and Islamix law.

"Money" is no longer defined as silver or gold, but is now counterfeit paper -- or keystrokes on a computer -- "printed" by private central banks then loaned to govt at interest, via unconstitutional unratified "laws" passed at midnight on pagan Christmas holiday.

Capitalism is the antithesis and enemy of Industrialism, as Henry Ford pointed out.

Ford also pointed out the Khazar AshkeNazi European fake-jews own the banks that are destroying the world for a global fascist/communist/jewish dictatorship to enslave the planet. Ford included the Protocols of Zion with every Model T, later for sale at Walmart.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm

Today the jewish owners of the private "Federal" Reserve Bank stole $30-trillion from Congress, exported it offshore, and are refusing to loan it out, just like they did to cause the Great Depression.

The genocide of 95% of the human race has begun, with 100-million murdered in USA since 1973...

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000."
http://www.google.com/search?q=georgia%20guidestones&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF
-8&sa=N&tab=iw

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 4, 2010 4:47 AM

Well, maybe this will screw with a few people's heads. Wulfie child, ready for some reading?

Quote:
The problem with the current mode of thinking is it assumes lower pay for employees is equal to more money for the business. This kind of thinking is flawed in that the employee IS the “consumer.” The greatest period of economic expansion came when labor laws allowed the Workers a taste of the Wealth they create. This is not Marxist unionist propaganda it is a Capitalist fact.

If the core of Capitalism is self interest (greed) why should the worker be any less greedy than the Capitalist? Marx wanted some sort of Utopia where fuzzy bunnies and happy kittens frolic and people work all day for the good of the collective. Screw that. I’m in it for me. I’ll work my rear off to make you rich as long as you take me along for the ride. I am not pro-union because I think Socialism Rocks. I am pro-union because I think Capitalism Rocks and I am as greedy as the next guy. Maybe more so. I am not working to make you rich. I am working to make me rich and I want my share of the wealth I earn for you. Capitalist Greed. Consumer Greed. Worker Greed. It is all Capitalism to me. I am not going to give away money I deserve just because someone calls me a “Socialist.”

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 4, 2010 5:05 AM

Siggy, problem with THAT, is this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Who do the Corpies get to call in for reinforcements ?
The whole military might of the greatest military spender on the planet five times over.

That's why I hang with the Wobblies, although I don't necessarily agree with em all the time, cause the worker is reduced to peon by the threat of the armys guns if they *DO* try to make an issue of it via force, and anything less gets outlawed, and lather rinse repeat...

Mondragon is a pretty good answer to both problems, but even that ain't perfect, nothin human is.

Still, every time you question "the way things are and will always be" - all you're gonna get from most people is...

"Crazy Eddie!"

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, July 4, 2010 6:33 AM

"But if you wanted to put a spike in the worst flaw of capitalism, that's EASY...

Give money an expiration date - use it or lose it.
Say ninety days from coming into your possession, for example."

Hello,

Other than discouraging traditional savings, I don't think this will do much. Those who want non-perishable funds will simply invest in an item or commodity that they feel will have long-term resale value. Then they will hoard it for rainy days or retirement or large purchases.

Perishable money just seems wrong to my sensibilities. I want people to save. Why make it hard on them?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

DMAANLILEILTT

Sunday, July 4, 2010 7:27 AM

i think i see the two main flaws in capitalism:

1. it's involves PRIVATELY owned capital in a FREE market which means when corrupt people gain control of the private capital they can do what they want with it and...

2. it involves money.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

GEEZER

Sunday, July 4, 2010 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, weren't you the one who supposed that the videos of cops beating peaceful protesters at the G20 could "somehow" be fake?

I was responding to DT's comment about the video I posted:
"Are you certain about the order of events there? Or who set the fire?"

I noted that my video, and yours, could be fake.

Quote:
All you ever due is obfuscate, minimize, twist, and in general set aide obvious fact and common sense.

Or in other words, when you post only information from folks who agree 100% with your point of view (usually from un-cited fringe sources, BTW), I post your cites and follow up with cited information from general reference sources that cast doubt on or disprove your claims.

Quote:
Why should I... or anyone here... pay the slightest attention to your whinging and apologism, when you are clearly as unbalanced as rappy?

Because I generally respond with information, even if you don't like it, rather than immediately leaping to personal insults?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, July 4, 2010 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, maybe this will screw with a few people's heads. Wulfie child, ready for some reading?

Forgot that cite again, SignyM.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/capitalism-yes-and-no-2/#

Makes it easier to read the entire article, and know where it's coming from.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, July 4, 2010 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My opinion is that, as N American and European economic activity is moribund (due to regressive taxation and lack of planning) and that real investment is at a near standstill, the only way to "make money on money" is speculation. (That, and illegal activities.... the end stage of any economic depression). The trick is to be speculating in whatever it is the ultra-wealthy are speculating in, but to be there FIRST, not to get sold the leavings while the market collapses and the ultra-rich bail out.

So the reason you're mad at Goldman Sachs isn't that they proportedly starved a bunch of folks, but that you couldn't get in on the deal?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 12:41 PM

Sig

You have supported socialism over the years so its natural for people to make the supposition that when you say capitalism has to go your back to that old drum.

Ethiopias problems are definitely not a microcosm of a world event. They have a known local cause: the Maoist national food distribution system. Sure, the international prices for food may be higher than ones local to Africa, and the govt, communist though it was, might be looking to sell that food internationally, but this is hardly a new development. African countries have been exporting food for higher international prices for half a century, more if you count colonialism. And prices outside Africa have always been higher than prices inside Africa.

But this bring us back to square one. To make this augment, you first have to do two things:

1) the this event happened at all. I can find no outside references to it or statistical data showing an increase in famine during that period.

2) that it was caused by commodities speculation, and that short termj fluctuations in price resulted in long term policy shifts of governments that would lead them to export food.

It seems unlikely to me that speculators would even have an impact on prices this dramatically without any real world cause. I saw the charts, wnd yes, an international food indedx went up. I'm not sure that would cause a shift in local prices, or that that would cause a famine short of an opportunist government program which would deliberately sell food overseas rather than fee it's own people, a situation as I pointed out, which has been happening for a long time.

Im not saying that its entirely implausible, just that it looks like youre reaching. First thing you have to do is prove that the event happened at all.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 12:50 PM

Quote:
Capitalism is the antithesis and enemy of Industrialism, as Henry Ford pointed out

Thanks John, that merited repeateing.

Wobblies?

The problem with money is the guy who mints it has an infinite supply and so owns everything.

The problem in ethiopia is not really economic, it's that the government wishes to exterminate it's ethnic minorities, and that has been the problem since the commies first took over in the late 70s.

Bring back the Kings. Kings of africa still exist, and still meet to discuss world issues, ut few of them hwve any power. The rapid turn over of power that comes with democracy or revolution leads to a radical increase in corruption, as the corrupt can much more easy remove the good leaders from power, and have more reason to do so.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, July 4, 2010 2:36 PM

"Why should I... or anyone here... pay the slightest attention to your whinging and apologism, when you are clearly as unbalanced as rappy?"

Hello,

For the record, this man has never told me to go fuck myself long and hard for daring to disagree with him. He has never been anything but civil with me in his discourse, and has always attempted to provide a logical (even if not always correct) argument.

I do not find the comparison valid.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

GEEZER

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

For the record, this man has never told me to go fuck myself long and hard for daring to disagree with him. He has never been anything but civil with me in his discourse, and has always attempted to provide a logical (even if not always correct) argument.

I do not find the comparison valid.

--Anthony

And a tip of the Geezer hat.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:59 PM

Anthony is right, Geezer is pretty civil, perhaps overly so. He is also one of the more centrist members of the forum, so if his position looks way off on the horizon to someone, perhaps they should look to where they are standing to as to why it might look like that to them.

I personally don't have problems with Rap, whom I disagree with a lot. I think that some of the more extreme position holders should perhaps not waste their time debating opposing extreme position holders if nothing can conceivably be gained by the debate, and then the emotional outpouring could be shored down a little and more civil debates would progress.

KANEMAN

Sunday, July 4, 2010 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

What, and it never occurred to you WHY imma Kropotkinist-Anarchist there, DT ?

As for putting a spike in the primary flaw of that religious philosophy known as Capitalism...

And I say religious philosophy cause yanno, in THEORY, it could work, if people weren't human, if nothing unexpected ever happened, if it were not possible to cheat the system, if, if, if...

But it sure as shit ain't never ever once worked that way in practice - a viable system has enough slack in it to account for stuff like that, which is the flaw of BOTH Keyesian and Austrian economics.

But if you wanted to put a spike in the worst flaw of capitalism, that's EASY...

Give money an expiration date - use it or lose it.
Say ninety days from coming into your possession, for example.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

Calling Capitalism a religion is about as far off as your earlier definition of capitalism(Geezer pointed out your hyperbolic absurd definition of capitalism...you must have felt retarded). Your blathering has risen lately to a crescendo that would make whales weep. Your opinion is becoming as irrelevant as Citizen's. Slow down, relax, and think through your tyraid before posting. Say something meaningful based in reality not useless metaphors and such. Your posts are making as much sense as an lain M. Banks novel....It's all in your head and is not real. Your perceptions are as clouded as the urine of a female with a UTI.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 4, 2010 5:49 PM

Oh issat so ?

And Politics is not, in itself the evolution of Religion past the divine ?

It is what it is, callin it something else will change nothing.

"Wobblies" = IWW, the one union that never took a knee, never bent over, and while at times disagreeable, holds to the principles instead of being a self-serving corporate pacification gesture.

It was Carnegie and Rockefeller who came up with the idea of the corps actually creating the unions and using them to sabotage and sandbag the workers while pacifying them by making it LOOK like they were accomplishing something cause it was cheaper than payin Pinkertons or Baldwin-Felts to slaughter anyone who didn't toe the line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

And anyone thinking todays unions have anything to do with workers rights is kinda laughable since the AFL-CIO and related orgs came out of the Sam Gompers (a notorious racist prick, part of why him and the IWW didn't get along) collective of government-sponsored strikebreakers who used "patriotism" as an excuse to BREAK IWW strikes when they realized refusing to feed the war machine would upset the balance of power in their favor - something Wilson found intolerable, and he bought off Gompers with a cushy cabinet position and then used the AF&L to crush the IWW, followed up by the first "Red Scare", the palmer raids, and all manner of bullshit in which workers rights were effectively destroyed in this country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Gompers

And yes, the truth of it is that the "Red Scare" had SHIT to do with anything BUT crushing Labors threat to the corporate robber barons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare
(Look at the especially telling page illustration, for example)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

And it showed that when the rules become inconvenient, the powers that be will simply ignore them, case in point the refusal to seat Berger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger

So in light of the truth of our history, which you for damn sure won't be finding in corporate americas classrooms, the idea that economic america of the current day and age, or ANY day and age, was ever a "free market" is quite, quite laughable, hell, even when we kicked the british robber barons off our ass, all we really did in the end is replace them with a bunch of Federalist ones - all the way down the line.

Shit, ask yourself what Lincoln *DID* for a living prior to politics, he was a goddamn strongarm lawyer for the corpies, particularly the river monopolies and railroad robber barons!

You gotta remember folks, my ancestors spilled gallons of blood over this, from the battle of matewan to blair mountain, up to and including getting bombed by the us motherfuckin air force, to secure what piddly pathetic workers rights we have -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

And all the while, especially today, hated, cussed about, and spit at for being "socialists" and "bomb throwing anarchists" and every other nasty thing, while those, like Gompers, who were ACTIVELY TRYING TO CRUSH THOSE RIGHTS, are held up as some kind of heros by bullshit propaganda and the insinuation that they were in some way responsible for those rights being gifted down from on high as a reward for bending the knee, behaving themselves and being good little bitches...

But that ain't how it went - those rights were torn violently from the teeth of the corporations in blood and thunder by MY ancestors, who are regarded today as villains and scumbags, while those standing against them are lauded as some kinda folk heros, fuck that.

And not like it stopped there either, hell, corporate america was SO fascism-friendly they kissed up to Franco even when they were fighting his buddies, cause they thought he had the right idea about what to do with those assholes who dared to, yanno, actually wanna get paid their fare share, actually get treated like humans...

And who wound up fighting EVERY GODDAMN BODY ON THE PLANE

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 4, 2010 6:50 PM

Quote:
Sig You have supported socialism over the years so its natural for people to make the supposition that when you say capitalism has to go your back to that old drum.

I have repeatedly supported workplace democracy and ownership by the workers. At times I have supported government action, when it appeared that only government action could solve a problem -for example, pollution which drifts from city to city and continent to continent.

Quote:
Anthony is right, Geezer is pretty civil, perhaps overly so. He is also one of the more centrist members of the forum

Don't mistake politeness for centrism. HE always... ALWAYS... supports jackboot capitalism. Not saying this lightly, but he always has an excuse as to why it's OK for us to overthrow democratically-elected governments and replace them with dictators who torture, rape, and massacre large portions of their population to protect and serve landowners, foreign corporations, banks and other wealthy elites. So when pictures show up of police macing and beating peaceful protesters, he wonders if somehow they are "fake", or what the protesters did to "deserve it".

DT, I used to think you were smart. What happened to you?

Quote:
For the record, this man has never told me to go fuck myself long and hard for daring to disagree with him.

He WILL, however, support people being billy-clubbed in a park. Ditto what I told DT. Geezer is polite. He also uses strawmanning and innuenndo to the point that makes me want to rip my hair out. For all of Geezer's politeness, he almost never argues honestly.

GEEZER

Sunday, July 4, 2010 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not saying this lightly, but he always has an excuse as to why it's OK for us to overthrow democratically-elected governments and replace them with dictators who torture, rape, and massacre large portions of their population to protect and serve landowners, foreign corporations, banks and other wealthy elites.

Well, if that's what you call showing that the folks you call DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENTS were often actually dictators appointed by the previous dictators, winners of elections with one candidate, or collaborators with the Japanese during WWII - or providing quotes from folk you say the CIA overthrew saying the CIA had nothing with their removal from office...

Quote:
So when pictures show up of police macing and beating peaceful protesters, he wonders if somehow they are "fake", or what the protesters did to "deserve it".

I'd appreciate a cite of where I said peaceful protestors were maced or beaten because they "deserve it". Or that I "support people being billy-clubbed in a park". I believe that happened only in your mind.

On another point, guess I'll have to point out that, according to your posts above, you risk your capital in investments in the stock market or commodities market, hoping that the return on your investment will make you a profit. In other words, you're a Capitalist. Does this make you feel like a hypocrite?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 10:58 PM

Sig

You have mentioned socialism as a solution a couple times over the years, I'm glad you've backed off of hat position. It doesn't matter what the intentions of a group are if their effect is to create a central authority tat can be abused in that manner, they simply become the alliance/blue sun, govt and Corp faces of the same thing.

As for change? I dont think so. I never find myself having issues with geezer, I think this is a personal attack and should be shelved. Send him an email if you have a gripe.

Geezer,

You did say something to that effect ove the g20 protesters. The globalist jackboots were some of the scariest Nazis vie seen in a while, you lost some points with me for supporting them. Overall you're okay. Ah well, so it goes,

To both of you,

Keep the Shiny side up

GEEZER

Monday, July 5, 2010 1:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer,

You did say something to that effect ove the g20 protesters. The globalist jackboots were some of the scariest Nazis vie seen in a while, you lost some points with me for supporting them. Overall you're okay. Ah well, so it goes,

DT.

Please review my comments in the G20 thread here. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=43982

If you think any of this supports "globalist jackboots" instead of showing that there was right and wrong done by both sides, please point it out. I'd be interested to know what makes you think that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DMAANLILEILTT

Monday, July 5, 2010 2:18 AM

no economic system can be totally perfect because it has people running it. capitalism will have the people eith the money calling the shots whereas a marxist system will mean the people on the bottom, who have no idea about how to successfully run a company and make money, will have control.

the only thing close to a "perfect" system would be a system run entirely by computer which had instaneous access to all information concerning economics and the ability to analyse them and come up with solutions that were equitable.

however, this would raise all sorts of ethical issues about whether a machene could be trusted with such a important task and whether we should even if it can.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

DREAMTROVE

Monday, July 5, 2010 4:10 AM

Geezer

I reviewed it again. It looked to me how it looked the first time.

You introduced anarchists causing damage to counter a story of jackboots squashing innocent peoplein a park. This does not logically follow that the behavior by the police would in any way be triggered by the vandalism.

It appears to be a fairly pro-jackboot position given the context.

I think the issue is not a light one: Police are not always in the position they are in our society. When the agenda and the ruling classes move to the extreme authoritarian, police become the arm of that authority, and supporting them becomes an authoritarian position.

The case here is the masked police in hoards and line enacting some tactics that Frem has names for, they've just ceased to be police, and have become storm troopers. They are defending the globalists, who are a fairly scary ruling elite, not the frequenters of common shops which were looted. The storm trooper behavior is not a result of this looting, because it was not created in response, it has to have been organized well in advance, tactics must be practiced, gear much be purchased, etc.

So, the Storm Trooper like jackboots are security for the globalists in the manner in which they respond. They are not acting as police responding to a crime of looting. No one would have arranged such a response. Esp. in Canada. But they could be security for the G20, and not having an exact time line.

When you provided this as a counterbalance, it certainly appears to me as if you were taking the side of the jackboots.

My feeling is that you are right, there are two sides, but they are not sides where normal people are acting normally or there is a normal back and forth. When the police don the jackboot attire and adopt the jackboot tactics, they are trying to not be people. They want to be a horde so that people cannot argue with them. They want to be faceless so that no one will see them as human, look them in the eye, or ask them to question what they are doing. That is because the human inside knows that what they are doing is inhuman. But at this point, the human inside is just a reactive set of muscles controlled by a nervous system which has pushed its humanity aside in favor of following its direct orders from a higher authority, and not a divine one, but the master they have just adopted.

The topic has come up a couple times ;)

Keep the Shiny side up

SIGNYM

Monday, July 5, 2010 6:35 AM

Quote:
Well, if that's what you call showing that the folks you call DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENTS were often actually dictators appointed by the previous dictators, winners of elections with one candidate, or collaborators with the Japanese during WWII - or providing quotes from folk you say the CIA overthrew saying the CIA had nothing with their removal from office...

Hmm... I posted at least a couple of dozen of examples of leaders that OTHERS called democratically-elected. Out of that couple of dozen, you had maybe two legitimate, specific objections. Now suddenly, through the magic power of innuendo, you paint a picture that ALL of those democratically-elected leaders (who we deposed and replaced with out-and-out tyrants) were somehow illegitimate to begin with?

Nice to know you haven't lost your touch.

Quote:
I'd appreciate a cite of where I said peaceful protestors were maced or beaten because they "deserve it". Or that I "support people being billy-clubbed in a park". I believe that happened only in your mind.

I believe DT answered you quite well on this point. But, yes, given the context, that is what you implied.

Quote:
On another point, guess I'll have to point out that, according to your posts above, you risk your capital in investments in the stock market or commodities market, hoping that the return on your investment will make you a profit. In other words, you're a Capitalist. Does this make you feel like a hypocrite?

Not at all.

Do you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, July 5, 2010 6:42 AM

DT, I agree with you on some points, but I believe you're being naive about police.

Oh, and BTW... I don't believe I've ever advocated socialism, and I suggest that you go find a quote where I did. I believe in one thread, once, someone said If you HAD to choose between capitalism and socialism, and those were your only two choice, which would you pick? I picked socialism. But that wouldn't be my first choice, nor would I advocate it.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 5, 2010 6:43 AM

Quote:
no economic system can be totally perfect because it has people running it. capitalism will have the people eith the money calling the shots whereas a marxist system will mean the people on the bottom, who have no idea about how to successfully run a company and make money, will have control.

But the workers can learn how to run a company, while the owners would never give up their authority.

GEEZER

Monday, July 5, 2010 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer

I reviewed it again. It looked to me how it looked the first time.

You introduced anarchists causing damage to counter a story of jackboots squashing innocent peoplein a park. This does not logically follow that the behavior by the police would in any way be triggered by the vandalism.

Never said it did. Just wanted to show that there was violence on both sides. I'm not sure how showing that some protestors resorted to violence as well as some police becomes a "pro-jackboot" position unless one believes that bad actions by police should be highlighted and bad actions by the protestors should be ignored.

Quote:
When you provided this as a counterbalance, it certainly appears to me as if you were taking the side of the jackboots.

Okay, so maybe you do believe that bad actions by police should be highlighted and bad actions by the protestors should be ignored.

Actually, I was taking the 'initiating violence is bad' side. I have no idea whether the police violence helped trigger the burning of cars and smashing of property, or whether the vandalism triggered the police violence, or whether both were entirely seperate. Both were aggression. If you want to point out the violence at G20, then it should all be exposed.

If you see what I said differently, I can't control that. Could be because of your point of view. Could be that some folks have used the "Big Lie" that I'm a supporter of the jackboots enough times that it skews your opinion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, July 5, 2010 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmm... I posted at least a couple of dozen of examples of leaders that OTHERS called democratically-elected. Out of that couple of dozen, you had maybe two legitimate, specific objections. Now suddenly, through the magic power of innuendo, you paint a picture that ALL of those democratically-elected leaders (who we deposed and replaced with out-and-out tyrants) were somehow illegitimate to begin with?

I'd dispute that it was just two, probably quite a bit more, but it'd just be a rerun of the last thread. Not sure how 'often' morphs to 'ALL' either. If you recall (apparently not) I did agreed that some of the actions of our government in Central America (and perhaps other places in the Western Hemisphere) in the early 20th century were uncalled for.

But I understand you have your agenda, and anyone who's not 100% behind it is the enemy.

Quote:
"Does this make you feel like a hypocrite?"

Not at all.

Do you?

I'm not the one railing against the evil profiteering of Capitalism while at the same time hoping that the commodities shares I purchased with my capital will make me the largest profits possible. That would be you. Seems like a disconnect to me, but I'm sure you could explain it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, July 5, 2010 6:05 PM

Yes Geezer, it was only two. Please go back and re-read your own posts. So, not sure how "two" morphs into "often"... but that's just you and your flexible approach to honesty.

Also, how is beating up and macing people peacefully sitting in a park an appropriate response* to looting? Oh, that's right... it isn't. There is no good explanation for what the police did in Toronto other than to act a stormtroopers for the G20.

* If they had gone after the looters, that would be a different story. But they didn't.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, July 5, 2010 9:50 PM

Collective punishment is always a Tyrannical act.

Far as a compromise between labor and capitalism goes, again I bring up Mondragon, here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Seems to work out pretty well.

And the similarity to the Sudbury Educational Model...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school
is also a telling factor in what the future of human relations COULD be, were we to stop playing the rigged game set before us by TPTB.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, July 5, 2010 10:29 PM

Geezer

What Frem said.

Also, Glad you didn't intend that. If you review the thread, you can see how from the context it looks like you are trying to rationalize the actions of the jackboots.

I know Orwell say avoid the term, but when people purposefully dehumanize themselves to become it, they have earned it.

GEEZER

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes Geezer, it was only two. Please go back and re-read your own posts.

I have. Seems like quite a bit more than two to me. Matter of opinion, I guess.

Quote:
Also, how is beating up and macing people peacefully sitting in a park an appropriate response* to looting?

For the manyth time, quote me anywhere I said beating up people in the park was an appropriate response to looting. My only point was that if you're gonna criticize violence, you should criticize all of it, not just one side's.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:16 PM

Quote:
Seems like quite a bit more than two to me

Really? Then you will no doubt post them here.

GEEZER

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If you review the thread, you can see how from the context it looks like you are trying to rationalize the actions of the jackboots.

Actually, I can't. Perhaps you attribute to me motives I didn't have, which makes you prone to see it that way.

Quote:
I know Orwell say avoid the term, but when people purposefully dehumanize themselves to become it, they have earned it.

I might also note that when you use terms like "the jackboots", you are dehumanizing a group of people as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:49 PM

Just saw this. It has to be more than Mao and Stalin, doesn't it? Some form of tradesmen-economy and mercantilism has existed since civilization stared, and I presume is also a reason for a large number of the historical wars if you consider the production of goods synonymous with available resources for the taking.

There's nothing wrong with a trade-based economy, really, peaceful traders have existed in the past (sometimes with enough political clout they didn't get plowed over, sometimes not). It's the easiest system to implement. An economy that emphasizes greed and power-consolidation above all else, however, is unstable and ultimately unsustainable. It's these kind of economies that go to war with others, because they have to constantly grow, or collapse, because they lack a proper sustainable foundation. Power consolidation problems exist with socialist or communist societies as much as it can with capitalist or any other.

DMAANLILEILTT

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 2:38 PM

but a large collective of individuals cant agree on the best course of action to take

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 2:59 PM

Geezer

nah, look again. You should be able to see it. I can see where this is not what you meant, but you should see where I got that impression. You were providing rationale for the jackboots.

Also, I said jackboots willingly become jackboots by dehumanizing themselves... intentionally... so I am not dehumanizing them.

Byte,

Not all societies have the same centralization risk. This one was best protected against it, which is why it took TPTB 200 years, and it only took them 5 years to convert Nazi Germany into a radical humanitarian disaster.

"A society based on cooperation rather than competition, the collective rather than the indivudal" is more prone.

Anyway, yes there was something new in trade policy, an international commodities exchange which created speculation that raised prices during that time. I am just not convinced that famine was the result of that, or that a statistically abnormal worldwide famine took place at all during the time period stated, let along that it would have killed more than stalin and mao, which means 130 million.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:24 PM

Quote:
"A society based on cooperation rather than competition, the collective rather than the indivudal" is more prone.

Hmm, maybe. I still hold that you really can get this happening with both versions. Especially if the competition is just something played by the peons for the benefit of the people with the power consolidation.

I'd argue that modern Japan is fairly competitive among their population, yet culturally they believe in the collective over an individual. Though you might disagree; just last year their social liberal (socialist) party took the majority in their parliament.

Our nation was protected against power consolidation, even though the Federalists were trying to push for it at every turn? I don't think it's taken 200 years. I think this has been here from the very beginning, why else was it only the male landowners able to vote in the beginning? It's gotten worse, yeah, but this has always been an aspect of our society.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

"A society based on cooperation rather than competition, the collective rather than the indivudal" is more prone.

A rather radical statement given that no society has ever been based solely on cooperation or competition.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 4:36 PM

Quote:
tradesmen-economy and mercantilism

Production and trade has existed since time immemorial, but that is not capitalism. You are making a classic mistake of attributing too many things to capitalism. Obviously a product of capitalist propaganda and lack of critical thinking.

Quote:
Our nation was protected against power consolidation, even though the Federalists were trying to push for it at every turn? I don't think it's taken 200 years. I think this has been here from the very beginning, why else was it only the male landowners able to vote in the beginning? It's gotten worse, yeah, but this has always been an aspect of our society.

It's been an aspect of EVERY society. Power concentrates. Money concentrates. It behaves like gravity: The more there is, the more there is.

And integration over more and more people ALSO seems to be a fundamental trend. Greater division of labor leads to more technology. That ALSO behaves like gravity: The more there is, the more there is.

It's not necessarily stable, but historically the only events which have taken down rapidly aggregating power are (1) natural disaster (2) invasion or rebellion (3) internal disaster (revolution) and (4) emigration. Would be nice if we could make THIS one take soft landing.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 4:38 PM

Quote:
Seems like quite a bit more than two to me- Geezer

Really? Then you will no doubt post them here.-Signy

Just a reminder.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 5:42 PM

Let's not have capitalism at all....let us all grow our own food...oops what a second I live in New England. I need to buy from Florida, California, New Jersey, etc.... You fucking morons that don't like Capitalism are free to get out of the system and live in the fucking woods...leave the rest of us alone. Where would Africa or any other place on earth be without the goods and services of other countries that produce and sell or donate goods(America)? It can only be done through capitalism...Fuck you socialist. Grow me some lettuce and I'll trade you a fish....fuck you.

”Niki--condescending arrogant fat old bi-polar hag....You are an asshole...one does not need a sockpuppet to tell you to fuck off" ...sayeth Kane

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 5:53 PM

Ehm, I'm not sure that's all the possible causes of collapse. I mean, yeah, the Huns invaded the Roman Empire, but the cause of the collapse wasn't the invasion, it's because they'd expanded too large to manage and the labour and coin base holding it all up had eroded.

GEEZER

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Really? Then you will no doubt post them here.

A few more than two, just to prove that point. If folks want to see the whole thing, including cites, they can start about halfway down this thread. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42912

So, as noted before, there's Sukarno of Indonesia, who collaborated with the Japanese in WWII, who put large numbers of his countrymen into forced labor for the Japanese, and wrote a constitution which pretty much insured he'd be able to rule by decree as long as he wanted.

Bosch in the Dominican Republic was overthrown by a revolution, staged his own revolution, has peace imposed by the U.S. and lost every succeding election.

Arosemana of Ecuador was such a drunk and skirt chaser that his own army turned him out, proclaiming that it was their duty to save the country from the "abyss of dissolution and anarchy" into which Arosemena was leading it.

Torres of Bolivia, was handed the presidency by the previous dictator, Alfredo Ovando, who gained the post in a coup.

Whitlam, PM of Australia, was booted for trying to force chenges the majority of the government didn't want, causing a constitutional crisis. He stated in his autobiography that there was no outside influence in his removal.

Bosch of the Dominican Republic again. After the election of 1965, Bosch foments a evolution against the winner of the election, Joaquin Balaguer.

The Sandanista's "Free and Fair" election of 1984, which occurred during a Sandinista-imposed "State of Emergency" which limited or banned freedom of speech and assembly, security in one's home, freedom of the press and freedom to strike.

Laos, where the Russian-backed Pathet Lao was in rebellion against the constitutional monarchy with NVA regulars acting as cadre and later supplying whole tank divisions.

Oh, and the Red Guard cannibalism during the Cultural Revolution in China.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 9:02 PM

And SignyM, I'm still waiting for you to explain the disconnect between your posting of threads like the current one or this one http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=43640 in light of the fact that you do the same stuff you rant about these folks doing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:12 AM

Byte,

The party running on the left is not always a left wing party. Japan is pretty right wing. If I recall, the Democrats won the election, not Socialists. Correct me if I'm wrong. Socialists are not ashamed of being socialist, they're proud of it, so they tend to put socialist in the name. I never label people socialist who have not called themselves socialists. Hence, I never call Obama a socialist. That, and it would be inaccurate. FDR and Hoover both said that they were socialists or socialists leaning, but neither of them were members of a Socialist party, so that's a grey area.

In Iran, for example, the left wing party is called Reform. They're kind of like our republicans, only probably less socialist ;)

Citizen,

It was a quote, hence the quotation marks.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:41 AM

Quote:
Japan's legislative organ is the National Diet, a bicameral parliament. The Diet consists of a House of Representatives, containing 480 seats, elected by popular vote every four years or when dissolved and a House of Councillors of 242 seats, whose popularly elected members serve six-year terms. There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age,[10] with a secret ballot for all elective offices.[43] In 2009, the social liberal Democratic Party of Japan took power after 54 years of the liberal conservative Liberal Democratic Party's rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Government_and_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 6:12 AM

Geezer: busy.

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: busy.

No rush. Got shopping to do today myself.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 1:32 PM

Byte

From your link

Quote:
Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.

This

Quote:
recognizes a legitimate role for government in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights.

These guys sound like just the regular left. Democrats even.

Actually, Japan has a little too much of this. You should check out their tax rates.

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:10 PM

If Greed Capitalism was a religion that crossed the stars could we ask. Does Capitalism eat the enviornment, destory planets?

I think I missed the old days of piratenews insanity

Quote:
Happy Bohemian Grove Human Sacrifice Day
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=22324

back to reality

The super-rich have made Britain into a nation of losers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/06/britain-super-ri
ch-wealthy

Media Just Can’t Stop Presenting Horrifying Stories as ‘Uplifting’ Perseverance Porn
https://fair.org/home/media-just-cant-stop-presenting-horrifying-stori
es-as-uplifting-perseverance-porn/

Disney heiress laments Bob Iger's pay worker conditions; 'I was so livid'
https://news.yahoo.com/i-was-so-livid-disney-heiress-visits-theme-park
-undercover-to-see-worker-conditions-093000722.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The American Empire’s Dystopian Epilogue
https://seeyouin2020.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-american-empires-dystopi
an-epilogue.html

"People are shocked that more than 1000 gas cannisters were used in Hong Kong since June 9. No one said anything when France used more than 10,000 PER DAY at the height of the Yellow Vests' protests."
https://twitter.com/Maxime_Reynie/status/1158315676144230400?s=19

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:19 PM

I'm beginning to think that Capitalism, just like Socialism, is a lot better on paper than implemented in the real world.

Is it possible to have long term Capitalism, and/or a non-corrupt government as a shepherd to it, without it becoming predatory?

As the self-proclaimed best country the world has ever seen in charge of it today, the answer to this question would appear to be a resounding no.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THG

Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:45 AM

The numbers of dead can only be a subjective number because capitalism can't really be attributed to anything of certainty.

T