capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28147
PAGE 22 of 28
Double Post 
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, you have no reply to the facts of policy statements of the Chinese Communist Party, to Chinese land ownership law, and to economic analysis of dominant public ownership of the economy. Instead you make completely unsupported statements. And then you engage in ad hominem attacks. Is that about it?
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
Quote:Ahhhh, the actual point of this thread.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit?
si shen
I prefered the sidebars where possibilities were explored.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know this was to KIKI, but... I don't care about the wealthy. I care about everyone else - the nonwealthy. You're the one who cares about the wealthy. For example
Why do you care so much about the wealthy unless you covet their wealth?
Quote:In other words, you care more about the wealthy and their tax rates than you do about the poor.
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G, to get back to the point where you ask about my ideal society, then claim it "won't work", then cite numerous examples which themselves are faulty... I'll get into that in a bit... THEN claim all you want is a intelligent debate. Well, you struck out on all points - especially on the intelligent conversation part. You put up a wall of pretty unintelligent prejudice, which is what I predicted.
So, in detail...
Quote:Can you give me ONE example in the vast reaches of history where significant wealth was transferred voluntarily from the rich to he poor? Since you can't, what makes you think that we would be waiting any less time for this miraculous event to occur than we would spend fighting for a wealth tax?
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth. I've mentioned it before several times. The reason is a wealth tax would be fought tooth and nail by the wealthy and we'd probably have to wait for many generations before we had a solution and the economy was running again.
Quote:Pobrecito! Poor things, feeling all punished!!!! God forbid we hurt their feelings while keeping people from starving!
It also feels like punishment, and I don't think the very wealthy have ipso facto done anything wealthy. The idea that they have seems more like something the angry masses are going viral on, like they have an excuse to hate.
It's really nothing personal. The problem is the crap-ton of $$ swirling around in a tornado of speculation at the top of the food chain. If you inject $$ at the bottom, all it does is create inflation. (Need to increase production) If you inject $$ at the top, like the Fed is doing, all you do is make the speculation whirl even faster.
Quote:The regulating authority is the...
Who gets to decides these amounts? Who gets to enforce them? What if my country objects?
Quote:
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), on which the United States serves as a participating member, developed international regulatory capital standards through a number of capital accords and related publications, which have collectively been in effect since 1988.... In October 2013, the Federal Reserve Board proposed rules to implement the Liquidity Coverage Ratio in the United States, which would strengthen the liquidity positions of large financial institutions. The proposal would create for the first time a standardized minimum liquidity requirements for large and internationally active banking organizations and systemically important, non-bank financial companies designed by the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/basel/
Quote:Please read more carefully. I said LEGAL disparity. Do the written laws treat men and women differently? Can women own property? Drive a car? File for divorce? Testify in court? All of this is easy to figure out
Who decides if there is a disparity between the sexes?
Quote:There are international observers who can tell whether fraud was involved in an election. They do this by means of observing ballot and polling place security, exit polls etc. Did you know that the USA refused international observers of our national elections?
Who decides what a Fair election is?
Quote:Huh, thats' funny. You claim its can't happen, but it already has. In Russia, China and other proto-socialist nations. Not only are you unrealistic as to what "can" and "can't" happen, you're a little behind the times. Well, OK-- waaaay behind the times!
That's never going to happen
Usually change like that happens as a result of a revolution, or profound civil disorder. But those DO occur.
Quote:
- this is where you loose me completely because your ideas are so fanciful - theyNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.
Too funny. You made me spit out my morning coffee.
Starbucks coffee? Are you another bitching hypocrite? Or just another dullard? Or do you agree?
Oh the idea of wealthy people voluntarily giving up their wealth, because that happens, like never...
No dont do Starbucks. Happy to say that Starbucks tried and failed in this country because basically American coffee is shit and nobody wanted to drink it.
Am I a bitching hypocrite? I don't think so, but what would make me a one? Not sure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.
You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.
si shen
Yeah, you can accomplish it in a number of ways, but having control over natural resources and being able to reap the profit from natural resources as a people is a good idea.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit? - T
Ahhhh, the actual point of this thread. - CHRIS
Indeed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.
You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.
si shen
Yeah, you can accomplish it in a number of ways, but having control over natural resources and being able to reap the profit from natural resources as a people is a good idea.
No it's not. It's called communism.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME