|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 4, 2021 13:51:00 GMT
I highly disagree with that. I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. And a libertarian with far-right values at that. To me, a Union is just a government that is smaller with more control. having one man in charge is unsettling. It can just as easily be twisted into a dictatorship. Morales, Lukashenko, and Peron are examples. Capitalism is just a freemarket dictatorship. People shouldn't be able to control multi-million dollar companies while children are breaking their backs in Vietnam and Bangladesh on their literal nickel. That...is Capitalism...When you fight those unions, you are fighting the people sewing shoes for 10 cents a day. You can find terrible things with both of our views. One of the biggest examples is the Redemption Period in my own state. You know what Private Eyes came from, right? Allan Pinkerton? The thing is, is that politics is a terrible but necessary thing in our lives, friend. Culture is beautiful...until you add politics. Catalonia and Spain, Flanders and Wallonia, and Serbia and Kosovo. Religion is beautiful until you add politics. Islam is beautiful, until Jihads. Christ is beautiful, until Europe's fragile peace split because someone felt they were being taken advantage. Politics sucks, but it is also interesting to discuss. If one is able to quit (one thing the government should protect), then I think it is right that Bill Gates, as horrible as he is, can own Microsoft, because you know what? He worked for it. People wanted what he made, so he gave it to them for a price that he liked. It is a win-win. With the reference of the people in Bangladesh, I hope I am not being presumptuous, but are you calling for a one-world government? If so, I disagree with you 1000%. A one-state government cannot be called upon to represent its citizens well, let alone a one-world. I feel like if someone has worked for something, it should not be taken from them, which is why I am a libertarian. If you artificially stimulate demand, you reduce the incentive to work. This leads to both lower productivity as well as economic decline as a result of that productivity. This created a need for increased artificial demand and it goes into a vicious spiral. On politics destroying many things that are beautiful, I fully agree, except for the one on Islam, but I won't get into that. (Just so you know, I have read the Q'ran multiple times, although in an English translation). Politics should only deal with making things crimes, and stopping that crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 4, 2021 15:36:16 GMT
having one man in charge is unsettling. It can just as easily be twisted into a dictatorship. Morales, Lukashenko, and Peron are examples. Capitalism is just a freemarket dictatorship. People shouldn't be able to control multi-million dollar companies while children are breaking their backs in Vietnam and Bangladesh on their literal nickel. That...is Capitalism...When you fight those unions, you are fighting the people sewing shoes for 10 cents a day. You can find terrible things with both of our views. One of the biggest examples is the Redemption Period in my own state. You know what Private Eyes came from, right? Allan Pinkerton? The thing is, is that politics is a terrible but necessary thing in our lives, friend. Culture is beautiful...until you add politics. Catalonia and Spain, Flanders and Wallonia, and Serbia and Kosovo. Religion is beautiful until you add politics. Islam is beautiful, until Jihads. Christ is beautiful, until Europe's fragile peace split because someone felt they were being taken advantage. Politics sucks, but it is also interesting to discuss. If one is able to quit (one thing the government should protect), then I think it is right that Bill Gates, as horrible as he is, can own Microsoft, because you know what? He worked for it. People wanted what he made, so he gave it to them for a price that he liked. It is a win-win. With the reference of the people in Bangladesh, I hope I am not being presumptuous, but are you calling for a one-world government? If so, I disagree with you 1000%. A one-state government cannot be called upon to represent its citizens well, let alone a one-world. I feel like if someone has worked for something, it should not be taken from them, which is why I am a libertarian. If you artificially stimulate demand, you reduce the incentive to work. This leads to both lower productivity as well as economic decline as a result of that productivity. This created a need for increased artificial demand and it goes into a vicious spiral. On politics destroying many things that are beautiful, I fully agree, except for the one on Islam, but I won't get into that. (Just so you know, I have read the Q'ran multiple times, although in an English translation). Politics should only deal with making things crimes, and stopping that crime. Yes, but on Bill Gates, he deserves his wealth because he worked for it yes ? What about Trump, so that we all know his story, he wouldn't be able to work for a day, I (in my teens) have probably worked longer than him. He just profited from his family wealth, continued something his dad set up for him and did nothing with himself, so much for capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 4, 2021 16:19:06 GMT
If one is able to quit (one thing the government should protect), then I think it is right that Bill Gates, as horrible as he is, can own Microsoft, because you know what? He worked for it. People wanted what he made, so he gave it to them for a price that he liked. It is a win-win. With the reference of the people in Bangladesh, I hope I am not being presumptuous, but are you calling for a one-world government? If so, I disagree with you 1000%. A one-state government cannot be called upon to represent its citizens well, let alone a one-world. I feel like if someone has worked for something, it should not be taken from them, which is why I am a libertarian. If you artificially stimulate demand, you reduce the incentive to work. This leads to both lower productivity as well as economic decline as a result of that productivity. This created a need for increased artificial demand and it goes into a vicious spiral. On politics destroying many things that are beautiful, I fully agree, except for the one on Islam, but I won't get into that. (Just so you know, I have read the Q'ran multiple times, although in an English translation). Politics should only deal with making things crimes, and stopping that crime. Yes, but on Bill Gates, he deserves his wealth because he worked for it yes ? What about Trump, so that we all know his story, he wouldn't be able to work for a day, I (in my teens) have probably worked longer than him. He just profited from his family wealth, continued something his dad set up for him and did nothing with himself, so much for capitalism. So you propose to not let something his father worked hard to pass down to him (to let his son have a life of ease) happen? Where does that work the father having done to help his son go? In addition, Upper class citizens have around 14% of their wealth inherited, while middle class citizens have it much higher at 35-40%. I see no reason that Donald Trump discredits capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 4, 2021 16:55:47 GMT
Yes, but on Bill Gates, he deserves his wealth because he worked for it yes ? What about Trump, so that we all know his story, he wouldn't be able to work for a day, I (in my teens) have probably worked longer than him. He just profited from his family wealth, continued something his dad set up for him and did nothing with himself, so much for capitalism. So you propose to not let something his father worked hard to pass down to him (to let his son have a life of ease) happen? Where does that work the father having done to help his son go? In addition, Upper class citizens have around 14% of their wealth inherited, while middle class citizens have it much higher at 35-40%. I see no reason that Donald Trump discredits capitalism. Well it's not just Trump, if you look at the amount of money gained by the rich and the amount of money gained by the middle class, there's a drastic difference. But if you look at how much they work, middle class works most of their lives, the rich just put in investments and make millions. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 4, 2021 17:45:10 GMT
So you propose to not let something his father worked hard to pass down to him (to let his son have a life of ease) happen? Where does that work the father having done to help his son go? In addition, Upper class citizens have around 14% of their wealth inherited, while middle class citizens have it much higher at 35-40%. I see no reason that Donald Trump discredits capitalism. Well it's not just Trump, if you look at the amount of money gained by the rich and the amount of money gained by the middle class, there's a drastic difference. But if you look at how much they work, middle class works most of their lives, the rich just put in investments and make millions. There is a reason why they make millions: because people want what they have to offer. It is as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 4, 2021 17:55:16 GMT
Well it's not just Trump, if you look at the amount of money gained by the rich and the amount of money gained by the middle class, there's a drastic difference. But if you look at how much they work, middle class works most of their lives, the rich just put in investments and make millions. There is a reason why they make millions: because people want what they have to offer. It is as simple as that. A worker who produces shirts make the thing, the only reason the rich are rich is because they sell things that are made by others. A investor doesn't make millions because he sells products. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 4, 2021 18:45:11 GMT
There is a reason why they make millions: because people want what they have to offer. It is as simple as that. A worker who produces shirts make the thing, the only reason the rich are rich is because they sell things that are made by others. A investor doesn't make millions because he sells products. Then why is there such a high demand for investors? They stabilize the economy, allowing people to have a job. |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 4, 2021 20:04:36 GMT
A worker who produces shirts make the thing, the only reason the rich are rich is because they sell things that are made by others. A investor doesn't make millions because he sells products. Then why is there such a high demand for investors? They stabilize the economy, allowing people to have a job. Why get a job when what you do will be profited by the person who sells them. Steve Jobs shouldn't have profited from the Ipad, the children workers in China should have. The fact that the success of your product doesn't have a ripple on your salary when you produced it is simply horrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 4, 2021 20:20:39 GMT
Then why is there such a high demand for investors? They stabilize the economy, allowing people to have a job. Why get a job when what you do will be profited by the person who sells them. Steve Jobs shouldn't have profited from the Ipad, the children workers in China should have. The fact that the success of your product doesn't have a ripple on your salary when you produced it is simply horrible. But the workers did profit. Otherwise many of them were likely to lose their jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 4, 2021 21:07:36 GMT
Why get a job when what you do will be profited by the person who sells them. Steve Jobs shouldn't have profited from the Ipad, the children workers in China should have. The fact that the success of your product doesn't have a ripple on your salary when you produced it is simply horrible. But the workers did profit. Otherwise many of them were likely to lose their jobs. When Apple makes millions per year but the slave workers in China get paid death wages or the factory worker gets paid slave wages when Ford makes billions and gets laid off because Ford doesn't want to give him is pension, I don't call that a "profit". |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on May 5, 2021 2:46:18 GMT
But the workers did profit. Otherwise many of them were likely to lose their jobs. When Apple makes millions per year but the slave workers in China get paid death wages or the factory worker gets paid slave wages when Ford makes billions and gets laid off because Ford doesn't want to give him is pension, I don't call that a "profit". Best form industries are co-operative industries. |
|
|
|
Post by warlord247 on May 5, 2021 3:23:42 GMT
I believe that capitalism is the best system we have. That doesn't mean it's perfect though. It is possible we find something better. But communism had already been tried many times, and it has never worked. If you notice, China is gaining more prosperity now that it's implemented some capitalist systems.
Also, countries listed that are suffering from said slave labour usually have an ineffective government that is prone to corruption, and is not suited to help its citizens. If the government was more effective, those citizens would be making real profit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 5, 2021 3:55:10 GMT
I believe that capitalism is the best system we have. That doesn't mean it's perfect though. It is possible we find something better. But communism had already been tried many times, and it has never worked. If you notice, China is gaining more prosperity now that it's implemented some capitalist systems. Also, countries listed that are suffering from said slave labour usually have an ineffective government that is prone to corruption, and is not suited to help its citizens. If the government was more effective, those citizens would be making real profit. 1. China isn't communist and lost the even simple rethoric in the mid 80's I believe, it's now more of a oligatchy of the powerful and CEOs 2. Maybe division into a federalist commune systemw ould help against this, a association of the people in tthat region, with one spokesperson making decisions according to what the population wants en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia this would be imo a description of an effective government. |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on May 5, 2021 5:57:55 GMT
I believe that capitalism is the best system we have. That doesn't mean it's perfect though. It is possible we find something better. But communism had already been tried many times, and it has never worked. If you notice, China is gaining more prosperity now that it's implemented some capitalist systems. Also, countries listed that are suffering from said slave labour usually have an ineffective government that is prone to corruption, and is not suited to help its citizens. If the government was more effective, those citizens would be making real profit. Co-operative system is better than "capitalist" system because here Workers or suppliers or both get profit, best example is Amul- a milk company which started in Gujarat as a small cooperative to become India's largest Dairy company and Sugarmills in western maharashtra are also successful in Increasing income of Farmers. It can also succeed if it is in Soviet form where local governments have most power and is elected directly by people like in Soviets in Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 5, 2021 13:22:50 GMT
I believe that capitalism is the best system we have. That doesn't mean it's perfect though. It is possible we find something better. But communism had already been tried many times, and it has never worked. If you notice, China is gaining more prosperity now that it's implemented some capitalist systems. Also, countries listed that are suffering from said slave labour usually have an ineffective government that is prone to corruption, and is not suited to help its citizens. If the government was more effective, those citizens would be making real profit. 1. China isn't communist and lost the even simple rethoric in the mid 80's I believe, it's now more of a oligatchy of the powerful and CEOs 2. Maybe division into a federalist commune systemw ould help against this, a association of the people in tthat region, with one spokesperson making decisions according to what the population wants en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia this would be imo a description of an effective government. 1. There is no such thing as a non-oligarchial government, be it Alexander's Empire, the USA, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or even a Communist Utopia. 2. One person being a "spokesperson"? You think that one person can act as a representative on what the people want? That may work at the nucleic family level, but at government, no. |
|
