capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28147
PAGE 18 of 28
Aphorism used in support of argument AS IF IT WAS A FACT.
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And yet, Chris,isall there are people, even ones on this very board, and in Washington and state governments, who argue that the only good system is one of pure capitalism.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G
Perhaps you didn't notice, but while I pointed out the problems of capitalism, I also suggested a solution - multiple times.
I'm sorta getting tired of people who can't or don't read, and having to post the same things over and over.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G, so I scrolled back thru the thread, and indeed, you did ask me a question once. It got obviously buried.
However, in looking at OTHER threads (specifically, the "if Hillary becomes POTUS" thread, I found this
Quote:
Bigger problems in other countries does not mean our own problems are nonexistent. Complaining is the only way those problems get the attention and solutions they need.-BYTE
Yes! Yes! Yes!-G
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=58250
Well, you seem to be all manner of agreeable about complaining in one thread, and so annoyed with it in this thread. So while I have a number of possible ideas about what to do in place of capitalism, maybe I'll just let this stand as my answer to your hypocrisy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MIKER
Quote:In going over your posts, I realize that you have even less command of economics than most. You don't know, and can't use, the appropriate definitions of "profit" and "incorporate", and because you're so utterly ignorant of the topic, are completely not worth talking to about it.
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Might makes right?
Possession is .9 of the law.
Say, do you have any objection to terrorism?
If so, why?
It is just the way it works out. Ask OJ Simpson. He is in jail for trying to recover some of his property. It is not so easy if someone else has it. If you have never heard that term then you truly are not from here.
As for asking if I have any objections to terrorism as though I might support it, I would just say fuck you. One has nothing to do with the other, but that is part of what you do isn't it? Cloud the issue.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Aphorism used in support of argument AS IF IT WAS A FACT.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.
Understanding the concept requires you to be capable of critical thinking. Skills you surly do not possess as shown by your thoughts on doing away with profit, while still making sure everyone makes a profit.
That's some funny shit.
Possession means holding property in one’s power or the exercise of dominion over property. By having possession one exercises control over something to the exclusion of all others.
The saying “possession is nine points of the law” is an old common law precept that means one who has physical control or possession over the property is clearly at an advantage or is in a better possession than a person who has no possession over the property. Even if a person is the rightful owner of the property but has no possession over it, the person who is in possession will be in a better position should the property ever be subject to challenge. This is especially true with adverse possession. However mere possession alone does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. This adage “possession is nine tenths of the law” is not a law but a logical rule of force that has been recognized across ages.
An Aphorism, true in general.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-is-nine-points-of-the-law/
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MIKERQuote:In going over your posts, I realize that you have even less command of economics than most. You don't know, and can't use, the appropriate definitions of "profit" and "incorporate", and because you're so utterly ignorant of the topic, are completely not worth talking to about it.
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.
Boy, Miker must have been a major head ach for you huh? Well I am pleased to carry on in his stead and will answer this for him, 1kiki.
I haven't forgotten what has been posted prior. In going over my posts what you actually discovered was you have no way to express what system you would put into place. You have been asked and when you tried to make suggestions it was pointed out to you they resembled Russia pre Gorbachev. A system that polluted worse than capitalism and provided far less for its population in return. This shows you have very little command of economics.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"A system that polluted worse than capitalism and provided far less for its population in return." Posted of course with no analysis of the relative starting point of either country, or, if you look at Russia through time for a relevant analysis of changing quality if life for the masses under feudalism/ communism/ gangster capitalism, a discussion of the vast improvement in quality of life for the vast majority of people under communism.
But here's an even better comparison - two non-western countries that started out at the same economic level, at the same time, and went in different directions.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality-life-indi
a-vs-china/
Quality of Life: India vs. China
Amartya Sen (Nobel prize winning economist)
The central point to appreciate here is that while economic growth is important for enhancing living conditions, its reach and impact depend greatly on what we do with the increased income. The relation between economic growth and the advancement of living standards depends on many factors, including economic and social inequality and, no less importantly, on what the government does with the public revenue that is generated by economic growth.
Some statistics about China and India, drawn mainly from the World Bank and the United Nations, are relevant here. Life expectancy at birth in China is 73.5 years; in India it is 64.4 years. The infant mortality rate is fifty per thousand in India, compared with just seventeen in China; the mortality rate for children under five is sixty-six per thousand for Indians and nineteen for the Chinese; and the maternal mortality rate is 230 per 100,000 live births in India and thirty-eight in China. The mean years of schooling in India were estimated to be 4.4 years, compared with 7.5 years in China. China’s adult literacy rate is 94 percent, compared with India’s 74 percent according to the preliminary tables of the 2011 census.
Not posted for the benefit of the original poster, but for anyone else who reads and can think.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME