hahaha douche. (chavez)

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

if you agree with communism, what will you do when the gov't tells your children what job they will be holding. reaction when your son is told they require him to report to a coal mine and cannot attend college>?

[88Mariner]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

where has true capitalism existed? I'd be interested to know myself. Perhaps Hong Kong...that's where it has been the closest to true capitalism....where government does not regulate or control any private business, and the free market is truly a free market?

perhaps you're just thinking of a mixed economy?

[Yao]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

economically speaking, socialism doesnt and cannot lead to growth, as you end up sharing the same resources over and over. you dont grow. the value of the economy just shifts from one hand to another. for it to truly be benificial, it needs a form of capitalism to precede it in order to generate the monetary means to induce a socialism that can create truly equal footing. here, for example, socialism will keep the country's GDP at a constant, but each person will have an equal share if chavez really ends up acheiving his goals. simple explanation that is entirely too general i know.

Even communism can lead to growth of an economy, where the hell do you get that weird idea that socialism is only redistribution in a closed circuit man? That would be reducing it to a higly constrained form of communism IMO. Even a socialist culture can be capitalist at the same time, and while some people refuse to believe it, even capitalism is built on socialist norms (freedom, justice, care). Read about Aristotelian economics if you will, it should explain this in detail. I'm all for capitalism, but with a more pronounced socialist attitude, mostly limited to health care and education. Those should be free sice IMO they constitute a long term investment in the country's economic and social health. When it comes to jobs, it should be more about creating the opportunities rather than only taking care of those that don't have one: there should be a built-in incentive to find work when you don't have it.

I hate people that depend on others and are too lazy to fend for themselves, but those that are genuinely disadvantaged should receive a minimum of support. Otherwise the next best thing to do is put them out of their misery.

[Yao]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

where has true capitalism existed? I'd be interested to know myself. Perhaps Hong Kong...that's where it has been the closest to true capitalism....where government does not regulate or control any private business, and the free market is truly a free market?

perhaps you're just thinking of a mixed economy?

True capitalism is Europe colonizing and extracting unprocessed natural resources from Africa and Latin-America. True capitalism is Europe and the US intervening in foreign politics and economies for their own gain via backdoor strategies (Anal Politics IMO). Capitalism is not so much about the govt not intervening, it has rather been about governments being controlled by and acting in the interest of industial elites.

Capitalism in the sense you mean, does not exist: it would be an emotionless economy, in which only robots can survive. Look at yourself for example...you should be aiming for max profit, but all too often you make a choice that does not maximize your productivity or profit, and still you don't feel bad about it. Rather, you often choose different because it makes you feel good, don't you?

[88Mariner]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

governmental intervention is capitalism? wow, that's news to me....

you make broad assumptions about capitalism when even you yourself admit it hasn't even existed yet.

[Shpira]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

this idea about capitalism- that it hasn't existed yet, why do you think thats the case?
Because it would be devastating if there was no control whatsoever...no intervention means no taxes, no taxes means no govt!

[Lorn]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

Anarchy!

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

Read about Aristotelian economics if you will, it should explain this in detail. I'm all for capitalism, but with a more pronounced socialist attitude, mostly limited to health care and education. Those should be free sice IMO they constitute a long term investment in the country's economic and social health.

dont bring up a theory based on the economics of a thousand years ago. its a different entitity now. im with you on healthcare and education, only in one way though. free healthcare and education should be entitled to all, but higher levels should be offered to those who can obtain it. if i can operate more cleanly, or teach better (harvard prof), i should be able to charge whatever i can get. a mixed bag there.

but no, not anymore, a true socialist economy, cannot grow beyond the normal inflationary rates of the country. there is no wealth being created, only re-distributed. i wont say go read some philosopher, ill say go to college for economics and accounting.

[Shpira]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

yeah but communism was never designed as an idea to operate in one county!!!

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

yes, because when communism conflicts with outside factors not controlled by the communist government, it falters and causes a loss of value becuase a quote un quote capitalist economy will drive the market away from a socialist/commnist country and into a better operating region.


i feel like stewert reginald griffin right now.

[Shpira]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

yes and no...its not that simple...there are other issues...I'm sorry I am a tad bit busy right now, got another Essay to write (trying to finish early with Uni so I can fuck off to Serbia for a week)
I'll expand later

[Yao]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

governmental intervention is capitalism? wow, that's news to me....

you make broad assumptions about capitalism when even you yourself admit it hasn't even existed yet.

That depends on your definition. Mine is different and therefor IMO capitalism has been around ravaging the economies of many countries for a few hundred years already.

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

That depends on your definition. Mine is different and therefor IMO capitalism has been around ravaging the economies of many countries for a few hundred years already.

but when implemented in the country being ravaged, it helps. its when capitalism fights with another system for a land that causes the ravaging. other factors as well, mostly social and political. even communist china allows for a lot of free market operations in an effort to compete globally.

we should all be wearing tuxedos and tophats and smoking out of a wood pipe right now. im going to get my monacle.

[Yao]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

dont bring up a theory based on the economics of a thousand years ago. its a different entitity now. im with you on healthcare and education, only in one way though. free healthcare and education should be entitled to all, but higher levels should be offered to those who can obtain it. if i can operate more cleanly, or teach better (harvard prof), i should be able to charge whatever i can get. a mixed bag there.

but no, not anymore, a true socialist economy, cannot grow beyond the normal inflationary rates of the country. there is no wealth being created, only re-distributed. i wont say go read some philosopher, ill say go to college for economics and accounting.

YES I will bring up a philosopher because this is completely appliccable to todays economies: he's not describing the economies per s?, rather the process of decision making in it and the human factor, and you'd have to agree with me on that one after reading it. It has fuckall to do with economics and accounting, the thing I was trying to point out.

I still disagree on the Health care and education level...although I'm into the reward according to ability thing. Some people simply literally deserve more than others. In health care what I would support is that people who make excessive use of it due to unhealthy lifestyles should be taxed more > making it free for everyone also carries the danger that some people will get careless and put an unnecessary strain on the fundings. That should be discouraged.

I don't agree with the 'higher levels should be available to those who can obtain it' simply because in general you do not choose by which illness you get struck: cancer can hit rich and poor people, so why should someone rich be able to get the medication and the poor not?

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok, you and me are plastic surgeons.

you do OK jobs with healing scars, i can make rosie donell look like jessica simpson. im sorry, but i deserve the right to make 10 million a year, even if the best you can do is 200K.