I sure didn't think that capitalism would bite the dust only twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.Cleets Part 2 wrote:Screwing people over for money is as old as time.... it didn't take Capitalism circa 2009 to discover this...
Screwing the entire world over for trillions of dollars - that took Capitalism circa 2009 to accomplish
It won't. It may here but it will thrive elsewhere and the new world power will emergehoundawg wrote:I sure didn't think that capitalism would bite the dust only twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.Cleets Part 2 wrote:Screwing people over for money is as old as time.... it didn't take Capitalism circa 2009 to discover this...
Screwing the entire world over for trillions of dollars - that took Capitalism circa 2009 to accomplish
It won't be allowed to fail. On it's own it fails.OL FU wrote:It won't. It may here but it will thrive elsewhere and the new world power will emergehoundawg wrote:
I sure didn't think that capitalism would bite the dust only twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I would suppose that depends on the definition of failurehoundawg wrote:It won't be allowed to fail. On it's own it fails.OL FU wrote:
It won't. It may here but it will thrive elsewhere and the new world power will emerge
Dawg, those western European social democracies that you so adore get their funding from a more regulated form of capitalism. Without capitalism they wouldn't exist.houndawg wrote:It won't be allowed to fail. On it's own it fails.OL FU wrote:
It won't. It may here but it will thrive elsewhere and the new world power will emerge
Uh, we do, Andrew Carnegie.AZGrizFan wrote:You people have no CLUE about the difference between a bank and a credit union.dbackjon wrote:
he's too busy jetting across the country...
(And I bet he flies first class, too)
D1B wrote:Uh, we do, Andrew Carnegie.AZGrizFan wrote:
You people have no CLUE about the difference between a bank and a credit union.
I find it utterly ironic that you, a blockhead frothing-at-the mouth conk, runs a credit union. Credit Unions, as you know, have a philosophy - banking and social, that is closer to Marxist though than it is to free market captialism. In fact it's marxism defined.
You, my friend are THE Karl Marx of the lending world.
Like communism, the birth of cooperatives (Credit unions) was a response to inherent flaws of capitalism during the industrial revolution.Cap'n Cat wrote:D1B wrote:
Uh, we do, Andrew Carnegie.
I find it utterly ironic that you, a blockhead frothing-at-the mouth conk, runs a credit union. Credit Unions, as you know, have a philosophy - banking and social, that is closer to Marxist though than it is to free market captialism. In fact it's marxism defined.
You, my friend are THE Karl Marx of the lending world.
What? How does poking a little fun at US capitalism equate to adoring "western European social democracies"?UNI88 wrote:Dawg, those western European social democracies that you so adore get their funding from a more regulated form of capitalism. Without capitalism they wouldn't exist.houndawg wrote:
It won't be allowed to fail. On it's own it fails.
Who else finds it interesting that France is moving toward becoming a more capitalist nation while the good ole U.S. of A. is moving in the opposite direction. Should we have a poll on which move will be more successful in 10/20 years?
Dawg, I'm just poking a little fun at you. I know you like the Western European model (and I'll admit it has many redeeming qualities) so I'm just pointing out that they are able to exist and provide the services they do because of the revenue that capitalism produces.houndawg wrote:What? How does poking a little fun at US capitalism equate to adoring "western European social democracies"?UNI88 wrote:
Dawg, those western European social democracies that you so adore get their funding from a more regulated form of capitalism. Without capitalism they wouldn't exist.
Who else finds it interesting that France is moving toward becoming a more capitalist nation while the good ole U.S. of A. is moving in the opposite direction. Should we have a poll on which move will be more successful in 10/20 years?
As for interesting - interesting compared to what? Compared to the US not moving a little in the opposite direction? Yeah, I guess it would get more interesting if we "stayed the course".
UNI88 wrote:Dawg, I'm just poking a little fun at you. I know you like the Western European model (and I'll admit it has many redeeming qualities) so I'm just pointing out that they are able to exist and provide the services they do because of the revenue that capitalism produces.houndawg wrote:
What? How does poking a little fun at US capitalism equate to adoring "western European social democracies"?
As for interesting - interesting compared to what? Compared to the US not moving a little in the opposite direction? Yeah, I guess it would get more interesting if we "stayed the course".
As for interesting, I think the US is moving more than a little in their direction. If we were a truly capitalist state than GM, Chrysler and all of those banks would have been allowed to fail. The US is becoming more socialist while France is becoming less. We live in interesting times and I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the US vs. France.
I also find it interesting that Obama is trying to lean on France and Germany to follow his lead from a government spending perspective.
Ah. I missed it. What do you mean by follow his lead?Those "services" ultimately benefit capitalist most.UNI88 wrote:Dawg, I'm just poking a little fun at you. I know you like the Western European model (and I'll admit it has many redeeming qualities) so I'm just pointing out that they are able to exist and provide the services they do because of the revenue that capitalism produces.houndawg wrote:
What? How does poking a little fun at US capitalism equate to adoring "western European social democracies"?
As for interesting - interesting compared to what? Compared to the US not moving a little in the opposite direction? Yeah, I guess it would get more interesting if we "stayed the course".
As for interesting, I think the US is moving more than a little in their direction. If we were a truly capitalist state than GM, Chrysler and all of those banks would have been allowed to fail. The US is becoming more socialist while France is becoming less. We live in interesting times and I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the US vs. France.
I also find it interesting that Obama is trying to lean on France and Germany to follow his lead from a government spending perspective.
Obama doesn't think that they're spending enough in government stimulus and wants them to increase the spending.houndawg wrote:UNI88 wrote:
Dawg, I'm just poking a little fun at you. I know you like the Western European model (and I'll admit it has many redeeming qualities) so I'm just pointing out that they are able to exist and provide the services they do because of the revenue that capitalism produces.
As for interesting, I think the US is moving more than a little in their direction. If we were a truly capitalist state than GM, Chrysler and all of those banks would have been allowed to fail. The US is becoming more socialist while France is becoming less. We live in interesting times and I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the US vs. France.
I also find it interesting that Obama is trying to lean on France and Germany to follow his lead from a government spending perspective.
Depends on your perspective D. Healthcare, set salary/wage levels, etc. benefit the people. Can they also benefit capitalists? Yes. Having a healthy, well educated work force is good for business. But by sharing the rewards they also decrease the incentive to take risks and invent new things and/or build successful companies. Capitalists take risks for profit and pride (or ego); by taxing at a higher rate and sharing the rewards with others you take away much of the profit motive so you're left with pride/ego as the main driver. It still works but are you slowing down the pace of innovation? Have you delayed the development of a cure for AIDS or a replacement for the internal combustion engine?D1B wrote:Those "services" ultimately benefit capitalist most.UNI88 wrote:
Dawg, I'm just poking a little fun at you. I know you like the Western European model (and I'll admit it has many redeeming qualities) so I'm just pointing out that they are able to exist and provide the services they do because of the revenue that capitalism produces.
As for interesting, I think the US is moving more than a little in their direction. If we were a truly capitalist state than GM, Chrysler and all of those banks would have been allowed to fail. The US is becoming more socialist while France is becoming less. We live in interesting times and I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the US vs. France.
I also find it interesting that Obama is trying to lean on France and Germany to follow his lead from a government spending perspective.
Agree. It's all about finding "the balance". Both perspectives have merits and flaws.UNI88 wrote:Depends on your perspective D. Healthcare, set salary/wage levels, etc. benefit the people. Can they also benefit capitalists? Yes. Having a healthy, well educated work force is good for business. But by sharing the rewards they also decrease the incentive to take risks and invent new things and/or build successful companies. Capitalists take risks for profit and pride (or ego); by taxing at a higher rate and sharing the rewards with others you take away much of the profit motive so you're left with pride/ego as the main driver. It still works but are you slowing down the pace of innovation? Have you delayed the development of a cure for AIDS or a replacement for the internal combustion engine?D1B wrote:
Those "services" ultimately benefit capitalist most.
