Government has to be the middle man between the consumer and big business. It cant be too big to hinder growth and it cant be too small so that the criminals in business come out and hurt the consumer. From 2000 to 2010 there were deregulations in government then out came the banks with student loans, credit default swaps, the housing market, Enron. Its sad but this is the reality that we live in.
As soon as the common population is pissed off with the way things are, the capitalist shall save face and run away screaming that the people are too stupid to know their own affairs, and flip-flop on democracy, declaring that only bureaucrats and businessmen have the solution. If you believe this obvious Orwellian propaganda, then you're part of the problem.
Her ideas are the worst possible ideas ever. The last thing we should ever do is reduce democracy, the democratic aspects of the system is already watered down beyond recognition.
It seems like nobody understand what she is referencing. Maybe people should take some time and read Bastiat, he very much predicted that this is what democracy would become. A contenst in who can grab the most of the common coffins, robbing each other, trying to come out ahead.
That's why democracy is such a stupid system, that's why a republic is so much better.
People sometimes forget the largest benefit of democracy. It was never designed to be the optimal system all the time - the key benefit is that it provides an avenue and flexibility for reform within the system. The alternative is highly destructive. The cost of achieving downside protection is that we give up some of the benefits of brilliant leadership. This environment is highly conducive to compounding over the long run and hence is the most desirable for improving the human condition.
MEXICO? With their massive drug-related crime problem?
BRAZIL? Responsible for the largest deforestation effort in the world?
They're your examples? Now disregarding the fact that the US is fueling both the demand for drugs and for agricultural land in the amazon, i dont think either of these countries have managed to make the best political decisions.
Is Mexico's drug related crime problem or Brazil's deforestation efforts endemic to any the differences she mentions (e.g. longer terms for public officials)? No. So why do you even bring it up?
Democracy is EVIL. demon o crazy. Listen. read the pledge of allegence. For the REPUBLIC for which it stands for the people by the people. NOT a democracy. this is slavery for the masses. and corruption for the evil parasitic elites of the world. fk em all. wake up they have bankrupt the country. and they let religion take over this country. Take that evil christianity back to england. take all yall religions back to your homeland. This was a land on spirituality and freedom.
Democracy means quite literally rule by the "demos" (the mob). I'm not a fan of Democracy because I've learned something in my lowly 25 years on this planet... "the mob" is fucking stupid.
@CharBroiled04 Point taken.. my young friend. Now who do you think the MOb is. The illuminati. is just one group. you have a network of them. We at the bottom and it goes up the pyramid. Just think positive and try not to be part of their matrix. Thats how you beat them. peaceout 1love
The 11th, 15th, and 22nd of what? Every month? Forever? Things happen all the time, including on the 11th, 15th, and 22nd of the month. And what the hell does "I am 9&13" mean? You're a 22 year old?
@CharBroiled04 dude go do you aight. I AM the 9thsun and the 13thborn. you want to know more. go check out my videos. believe what you want. but I know who I AM. I came back on 23dec67 at 12:21. To an apostolic family. I say no more. peace out and good luck.
I think you mean the 9th "son" and 13th born. And I don't see what that has to do with like... anything. Again, more random dates and times and such. At this point I think you are either in some sort of conspiracy theory cult or just have some personal issues mentally. I wish you well, I guess.
If the United States would return to being a republic, with a smaller central government, many issues such as education, health care and retirement savings could be handled at the state and local level as dictated by the U.S. Constitution. There are only 16 privelages granted to the federal government by the constitution. All other powers are left to the states and the people.(see the 10th Amendment) Self-Governance, not a nanny state.
Longer terms for the stupid and corrupted people we have in office?! NO! How about reorganizing the political system to keep major corporations the fuck out our policy making. Let's start with that, then maybe put people into office that have a grasp of world issues and technology. Then MAYBE we can talk about extending term limits.
I don't know if I'm for longer terms persay, but consider that we have a serious problem with uninterested, uneducated voters in this country which is WHY we get these terrible politicians in office in the first place. If they had a longer term, it would make the elections more meaningful. People might actually give a damn enough to educate themselves and sift through the bullshit and we might get better politicians.
@CharBroiled04 The problem with the apathy in our country has nothing to do with term limits. It is a result of the system. Why would people vote or even bother to learn about politics if they think their opinion doesn't matter. "I am one in 350Million," they say. "What good is one voice in a storm." Is the cry of the trodden. I agree. Representative democracy has failed us. In the end power consolidation and greed has ended it. The same way the Roman Empire fell so go we after.
@TheAnubisDrake Amen! It sickens me to see important chairmanships etc given away to pinheads as political rewards while qualified people are passed over.
But that is assuming that people that want to rule over others have good intentions, how can you limit a gov without things like a extremely armed citizenry? I think we should focus on freedom of the individual, "public good" will come naturally from that without tyranny.
@RyanR3volution Armed citizenry as a solution ? we tried that in the many centuries ago. Look at the factionalism in much of the world and the bloodshed it spawns. No thanks, I prefer social evolution to armed revolution to Americas problems. Corporate capitalism requires endless expansion/exploitation to feed on. It's becoming clear that a new model is needed for the survival of civilised societies lest we start feeding on ourselves like overcrowded microbes in a petri dish.
Free people are armed, corporate capitalism is not capitalism and is not a free market. You have no right to tell me what to own. If people are not armed, they are slaves. We have seen what happened to unarmed people, the holocaust, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, the USSR, China, An armed society is a polite society.
@Balleflander Yes, Socialism has been fairly good to the economy and the system of society, BUT the brits and french declared war because of germany's fascism
As for this masturbatory discussion, these clowns are nothing more than plain-old vanilla-flavored fascists. They want to further loot the public to maintain, at least for a bit longer, their hopelessly bankrupt financial regime - the very essence of fascist political-economy.
The problem is the quadrillions of dollars of kited, intrinsically worthless gambling debts known as "financial derivatives," created by the mobsters currently inhabiting such cesspools as Wall Street and the City of London. Simultaneous to their creation of this massive, fraudulent bubble, the financier mafiosos have looted and asset-stripped existing industries and infrastructure.
I don't think the problem is the short term politician. Rather that in a Democracy there are to many people "against it" and just as many people "for it" which ends up dragging down the system (in part). But I still love Democracy and will defend it with my life. I do though however think the system needs to be cleaned up. To much corruption has taken hold.
Is it just an irony that Dambisa's former employer, Goldman Sachs, had more to do with the global financial meltdown than any other corporation in the world?
If you'd like to see how Goldman Sachs and other CROOKS scammed us in 2008, see "Griftopia" written by Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi. It's a meticulously written expose'.
I especially like his chapter on Greenspan, "The Biggest Asshole in the Universe."
I think that we all need to realise that oliticias are not in the business of fixing problems, they are in the business of getting re-elected so therefore long term problem will never be addressed because they are not issues which the population take into account in the short term
I think that we all need to realise that oliticias are not in the business of fixing problems, they are in the business of getting re-elected so therefore long term problem will never be addressed because they are not issues which the population take into account in the short term
The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority".
I hesitantly agree with Moyo on the longer terms bit; however, the incentives idea is deeply flawed. it would work only if we knew in advance what constitute an achievement in society; also skewed incentive structure would lead to disaster. In ancient Rome, for instance, in the 3rd century when military skill was incentivized, every tin-pot general tried to become Emperor,leading to 50-100 years of political strife; In Renaissance Italy, it was wealth& you got the Medici, Sforzas etc.
If we followed her advice in this day and age it would just mean even more power for the plutocrats who have by now thoroughly infiltrated and bought out the political process in North America. "Fast track" policy would just mean more money and privileges for Wall Street and Bay Street because it would be their pawns doing the policy formation.
Every time there is an economic crisis the same old arguments abt democracy failing are regurgitated; in the 1890s, there were clamors for a stronger monarchy with an aristocracy; in the 1930s, it was Stalinism and Fascism; now our latest obsession is the Chinese system.
And the federal reserve voted for raising the debt ceiling? No, congress is the problem. And congresses is voted in to power. But it is not democracy at fault. It is voter stupidity and complacency.
Many of the ill's of western society can be traced to the media and the dramatization of politics for the purpose of entertainment. More people die on the roads than have died at the hands of terrorists for example but how much political pressure is there to do something about the road toll ?It's not a voting issue because it isn't entertaining enough !
why not 30 year terms like they have if north africa?. idiot. and errr. streamlined decision making IS another way of saying authoritarianism. Boof head. These professors/doctors are soo irrelevant.
I'd encourage people to read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He deals with the time preference incentive of politicians in a very articulate manner.
The problem with American democracy is that America is a country that glorifies blind faith, junk food, shallow consumerism and a fear of real change. These ideals have been instilled for so long that the average voter is a reactionary simpleton who votes based on keywords and tradition. Few care about REAL issues and intead focus on small or imagined problems & care more what a politician says than does. They are stupid & easily distracted & the government depends on that to stay in power.
Marxism is based upon communism and I preach neither. I identify basic truths.
Profit and Interest are theft of of labor. You can draw a wage for your labor and apply procurement costs of raw material. Any added subjective value (interest and profit) are theft and to balance the equation labor must be added.
This is part of the matrix that binds you.
The air is thin up here but I believe in your abilities.
Marxism is based upon communism and I preach neither. I identify basic truths.
Profit and Interest are theft of of labor. You can draw a wage for your labor and apply procurement costs of raw material. Any added subjective value (interest and profit) are theft and to balance the equation labor must be added.
This is the matrix that binds you.
The air is thin up here but I believe in your abilities.
Marxism is based upon communism and I preach neither. I identify basic truths.
Profit and Interest are the of of labor. You can draw a wage for your labor and apply procurement costs of raw material. Any added subjective value (interest and profit) are theft and to balance the equation labor must be added.
This is the matrix that binds you.
The air is thin up here but I believe in your abilities.
@katey1dog The mergence of governance and capitalism to form a singular governance is what capitalism is all about. What you mean with 'capitalism' is entrepreneurship and free enterprise.
@katey1dog Corporatism is a form of capitalism, any system where capital is the basic idea of the economic system is capitalism. Idiots like Ron Paul use corporatism as a scape goat for the inevitable path capitalism goes down. When money doesnt help one gain power any more, politics is next.
Any form of capitalism is tyranny, including the freest of markets. The one who owns the property is the slave master.
No. The mergence of state power with capitol growth is called fascism. It enlargens government with capital growth and ensures a corporate safety plan in the case of failure. Basically, it is socialism for the wealthy.
any system where capital is the basic idea of the economic system is capitalism
@katey1dog 1) Corporatism is not synonymous with Fascism, especially in it's modern sense of 'McDonalds making government policy' or 'government supporting special interests', rather than in the original Fascist/Catholic sense of creating a mechanism whereby workers and manufacturers demands are meditated by a elected chamber of Technocrats, preventing strikes and nullifying demands for nationalisation of industry.
2) Mussolini defined Corporatism as a from of Capitalism, "Heroic Capitalism".
@endauthority Any form of capitalism is tyranny, including the freest of markets. The one who owns the property is the slave master.
No, the growth of individual liberty and a non-invasive tax code betters society. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, the abandonment of the gold standard we have seen depressions and recessions which only benefit the wealthy, guarantees security for banking cartels, and ensures and protects big government.
Even Switzerland has a form of socialised healthcare, no profits allowed for standard cover. ie no market.
Markets only for perks.
Stagflation was a con, shock doctrine to trash the system into the shit we have now.. a fraud committed by weight of vested interests accumulated by banks, oil, arms, Reagan, Thatcher & Murdoch. Not a conspiracy, many city spivs openly talk about this.
Free-market hype saw a huge shift of wealth to the top 1%.
@vikramkrishnan Anarchy, or the smallest/neutered gov't possible, basically capitalism without the government monopoly on force, violence or theft.
The problem wit our capitalism model in the west is that corporations own our politicans, who write laws to give their companies advantages, it's fascism really, especially when we factor the large banking cartels who own pretty much everyone. They can only do this because of the state's monopoly on force.
@GtheMVP I partly agree with you. There is too much government interference in the workings of the market and it is leading to serious imbalances globally. Historically, government backed corporatist private enterprise, like the East India Company, has resulted in serious exploitation and poverty. However, the assumption that if the government were to cease to act, or if private enterprise were to exist w/o any checks and balances, there would be no coercion is a bit too optimistic.
@GtheMVP Absolutely true. The problem with the West today is; that the original ideal of three independent branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary exerting checks and balances on each other no longer exists. You have a legislature that will say and do anything to get funding and votes; an executive that has no legislative control over it; and an overactive judiciary that has decided to perform the task of the legislature and entered into the law making business.
@GtheMVP I prefer a system as outlined by Polybius, Montesquieu and Burke where popular power, legal systems and capital exist each imposing balances on the other. It would involve a minarchist, instead of an anarchist government; an independent judiciary - not the joke that currently exists in the US with Scalia, Kagan and Thomas; and a broadly free market economy. The details would have to vary depending on place and time, evolving based on the unique history of that nation.
@vikramkrishnan "Capitalism," as the word is currently used, is just as vague, nebulous, and meaningless a term as "socialism." The fraudulent debate over "capitalism" vs. "socialism" is a stylistic debate, not a substantive one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the really substantial issues of economic policy: credit for productive facilities, investment in basic infrastructure, scientific research and conversion into workable technology, increasing the productive power of labor, etc.
@offsprng46 The distinction between capitalism and socialism can very simply be defined as the difference between the private and public ownership of the means of production. Societies can be classified as such depending on which one is the dominant mode. There exist different subtypes of capitalism not all of which are beneficial to society. Egs of the different types of capitalism include: Monopolistic, free market, state corporate etc. depending on the political basis for market behavior.
@offsprng46 I agree that the debate currently is to some measure stylistic. Post 1989, there is no serious socialist alternative to capitalism as a world system. Most countries now are mixed economies. Credit for productive facilities would be better obtained from private sources that would invest based on a cost benefit analysis, as opposed to what Japan did in the 80s and 90s. Scientific research depends not only on funding but also on the socio-political environment.
@offsprng46 For instance,the current obstacles to stem cell research have no valid economic or scientific basis. They are the consequence of political meddling in issues that people and politicians poorly understand.
@vikramkrishnan Meritocracy with focus on democratic elections at the lowest level in the government. The closer the candidates are to their voters the better choice the voters will make. Let only the people who went through every step in the governmental ladder based on their performance be able to take part in the elections the the senate or the house of representatives or whatever you have there.
@S0chan Again,the problem here is what are your metrics for measuring performance? It cannot simply be how closely a person's policy decisions tally with the short term objectives of the people. Popular emotions can and have been manipulated in the past; say for instance, Cleon, who whipped up Athenian fury during the Peloponnesian War, to the Bush crowd exploiting post 9/11 fears to launch the Iraq War. Popular sentiment isn't always rational; foresight is rare, while hindsight is commonplace.
@Visfen "commons" ?? Property is owned by a very few, not shared equally amongst the commons. Hardin himself acknowledged this flaw in his concept.
Majority of the populations of Latin America, Africa and Asia will disagree with you. eg. India 35% illeteracy, leper colonies, shanty towns and open sewers is also the place of a 1 billion dollar mansion.
Are we ''Richer'' ? Having a TV and a car on a dead planet?
@kennegun the obvious flaw in this thinking is that latin america, africa and asia have not always operated under a free market system. if anything, your evidence proves visfen's point.
@kennegun imperial collonialism is not a free market system. neither were the "reforms" of pinochet. and those that are the worst off, (especially in south america) became that way, only after very anti-freemarket "reforms" were put in place.
@JAROSLAVAGINA The so-called free market system (Its not really free when you go deep into it -e.g. you wouldn't have bail-out plans in a free market system for starters but thats another topic) uses propped up dictators like Pinochet (who was placed there with US backing ..& there are many, many others like him) to exploit the resources of those countries to benefit corporate interest, they also benefit us as well. Who pays the price are the poor farmers and people in those countries.
@kennegun except for what you just described is statism and is in no way a free market system. are you trying to prove me right? i'm confused at what your position is.
@JAROSLAVAGINA You seem to be confused of what a free market system is as well. Its a system that can only exist as a transitory phase, if it can exist at all. Statism is the inevitable outcome. Whether, you prefer the tyranny of the private individual or the tyranny of the State is up to you.
@kennegun wrong. you have either the tyranny of the state, or the tyranny of individuals empowered by the state. i have no clue what your talking about anymore, and i am willing to bet you don't either. good day.
@JAROSLAVAGINA Your getting close. Except those individuals don't necessarily have to be empowered by the state. If you were to study history (the real history, not the watered down, distorted, contorted version that is taught in the state run educational system to make you into a good soildier as you seem to be), you'd have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Knowing bits and pieces about political and economic ideology is leaving you myopic. TC
@kennegun "If you were to study history (the real history, not the watered down, distorted, contorted version that is taught in the state run educational system to make you into a good soildier as you seem to be)"
@kennegun And private property is maintained very well, public property however is not, which the environment is. It's not a problem that property is not shared, it's no flaw, it's serves a purpose.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that there's a free market in the third world? There's not, look at the heritage foundation of economic freedom.
Yes, we're richer and the planet is not dying don't be a an idiot.
@Visfen Clear cutting is done on Private land. Mono-culturing is done on private land. Mining is done on private land. The ''third world'' has been exploited and raped by the free market.
Planet is not dying? mmm . look up, global warming, eutrophication, ozone depletion, soil erosion/depletion, habitat loss and geometric extinction of flora and fauna, smog pollution, increasing rates of cancer and respiratory diseases, scarcity of clean/fresh water sources, desertification, ect ect ect..
Leased/ Private/Government owned, there all roses by different names. The point is that we as a people(the majority) have no direct say in what is done to the environment.
??
3rd wrld: They're not free because of the dictators we prop up (in most cases). These autocrats serve capitalist purposes.
Most scientists have ample data to back my claim. 3100 of them signed a anti-global warming petition. No one singed a counter petition claiming that evrything was fine.
@kennegun Nope. It's a big difference in owning something and borrowing it. In the case of the later you really don't care what happens to it do you?
Sure, they serve capitalistS purposes but that's not capitalism. Leave the retarded class-theory democratic-warfare-nonsense in the sewers where it belongs.
Uh, that's not the same thing as the planet dying. Big difference. Sure global warming is real, but we can save more lives with cheap energy than caring about emissions.
@kennegun You're not making any sense. Outcome is not the same when you borrow or own land. When you borrow land you lose money planting trees, when you buy it you make money. That's why private ownership of forest, just by looking at surveys done in the US, show that private land is managed better and cheaper.
Eating the seed? What are you talking about. Eating the seeds is exactly the only thing we do in common ownership. Nothing is as destructive to the enovirment as common ownership.
@kennegun Besides, it doesn't matter what damage we do to the "planet" what it matters is the damage we do to the environment that could have instead benefited us. That again is a problem with ownership.
The thing is though, nature in and of itself is a pretty darn inhospitable place. That's why we have to bend it so that we can live in and not die of diseases and being eaten by lions. The question is if the damage we do is less than the benefit and it is.
@Visfen I agree that ownership is a problem. A few owning evrything is a bigger problem than the majority owning it. I prefer the term borrow from future generations. mmm ... that sounds too socialist maybe??
@kennegun No, you're incorrect. The best system is where the most productive in using the land owns the land. For instance, if the Indians were allowed to use all of the midwest and south as their primitive hunting ground the world would lose like 50% of its' potential farmland. It's not an effective use of resources, it's just stupid.
So we want those that manage the land best to own it. Which often are a select few.
Yes, socialism is pretty damn terrible so I'd stay away from that.
How about who owns the land can use it? Who can best use it is subjective and leads to an authoritarian approach where someone gets to pick the winners and losers.
@xOutlaw6x Well since property rights come from using the land that is just stupid. You can't actually own land under free market property rights, you can merely own what is on it. Like a well, a house, trees, bushes, the dirt, the soil and the grops you grow.
That's the best system of managing anything.
You're telling me there's no non-subjective way in determinig value? *Facepalm* Of Course it's subjective, but let it be done by market evaluation so everyone worth anything get a say.
I have no idea what your calling stupid or what your viewpoint is.
My position is it doesn't matter who can "best" use the or what a majority of people think it should be used for, it "should" be used for whatever purpose the person who owns it wants.
Have you read anything about Native Americans aka "Indians" ? From your comments it seems you lack the most fundamental knowledge of pre-Colombus Americas.
Have you read Marx and Engel? If you have, you'd know we never achieved anything close to a socialist system they described.
@kennegun The south and midwest were pretty much empty. No farmers at least.
I have, you clearly haven't read Bakunin or Lenin though. As Lenin describes the problem with socialism is that it goes against human nature, so you have to brainswash people, that's his solution. Bakunin's solution is market anarchism which is the only thing that has come even close to common ownership. Dveloped upon those ideas have been done later one with better economic science, the result is anarcho capitalism.
@kennegun As an Indian, let me disabuse of the notion you have that the problems of India have to do with free markets; the problems of India have much more to do with socialism. For 40 years, we had a 2% rate of growth and a 2-3% rate of population growth. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan which all started out with India in nearly similar economic circumstances, but chose a free market system have eradicated poverty, disease and illiteracy.
1) India or any other nation has never been a true socialist country. According to Marx, A socialist system will inevitably rise out of a modern industrial capitalist economy. Don't mistake it with Stalinism or Leninism or autocratic rule. Problems with India are many not just ''free markets''. Japans modernization began with the Meiji Restoration in 1856. They did not have to contend with ''colonialism'' ; they also had a 100 year head start compared to India.
@kennegun Post WW2 Japan was flattened. They managed to rise out of the ashes. Even under colonialism the problems remained the same: lack of free markets, coercive government, low rate of growth.
@vikramkrishnan Japan didn't have the resources or the money to pull itself out of anything after WW2. American money helped establish state mechanisms tht have already existed. State building has never worked. Read Francis Fukiyama. "State Building" . British colonialism, India was a servant; it WAS the market. Growth! ? British didn't give a fck about Indian growth during their occupation. Look up Churchill and Gandhi, ReOrient, History of the British Empire and India a History in Amazon
@kennegun Man it's so annoying with people who have read Marx and don't understand it... please read Bakunin at least. The only socialists that even make sense are the mutualists
We have tried marx ideas,the problem is that in order to implement them you have to force them down peoples throat because people don't really want common ownership. Then you get an authoritarian state. That is the result of the ideas.The utopian picture will never be realized because it doesn't understand human nature
@Visfen Greed is in human nature, but don't you think that our modern capitalist system and mass media nurture that lust for material wealth by drilling into us to buy,buy,buy? 12 billion people by 2050. Evryone of them aiming at American style of consumption is suicide for the eco-system. It is NOT sustainable. We have to redefine our concept of success and wealth. Many societies have existed in the past, where the individuals had no concept of ownership. Greed is not our destiny.
@kennegun The richer we are the fewer children we have, so the only way to "solve" that problem is to make sure that the third world also get to benefit from free trade and free markets like China and all the tiger economies have.
I don't see a problem in that we are instilled with material ambition, in order to get wealth we have to create it. That's how a market works.
Yes, and they have been far less successful. To take an american example, the Plymouth colony. People starved.
@Visfen The reason ppl in poor countries have lots of children is because they have no old age social security net to take care of them when they are unable to work. More children one has, more comfortable one is in old age. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Religion, and gender inequality plays a large part as well.
People starving in Plymouth colony is news to me. I read it was annexed. I wasn't there, so I'm not sure.
@kennegun So they don't have a bankrupt system that transfers wealth from poor younger people to rich elderly white folks, that's why they have more children? No, the fact is that if you don't have more people, the family will starve, even though the parents are not even 35.
The Plymouth colony's had a collective ownership system the first years. It was a disaster. This is where the tragedy of the commons expression comes from. So he split the land, private ownership, everyone was better of
2) Korea/ Taiwan had massive US aid to build up their economies to counter communist China and NOrth Korea. Same with reconstruction of Germany; to counter Soviet ''threat''. The countries you mentioned also has a much much smaller and homogeneous population to control. The progress India has made is respectable compared to where it started from. India cannot be compared to these other countries. Corruption is also at the heart of Indian problems.
@kennegun South Korea and Japan were completely devastated by the Korean and Second World Wars. Korean per capita income was half that of India. The economic progress that India has made has been in the last 2 decades of freer markets and decreasing government controls. Corruption in India arose because of government control of the economy. When you need 20 people to stamp one document to get a telephone connection that is vital for your business, officials will demand & people will pay bribes.
@vikramkrishnan Corruption has existed in India and evrywhere else for a very long long time. Its a cancer of any long existing social systems. GDP is sometimes misleading. Majority of Indians have not gained anything expect an entrenchment of poverty from crony capitalism. If you read Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations, who was the first to identify what a true capitalist system is in the mid 1700s, you would realize, nothing today even resembles a true capitalist economy.
@vikramkrishnan i agree... but its also true that state capitalism leads to what we have now, which is a corporatist/socialist hybrid system that clearly isnt working! what we need is free market voluntaryism of some kind, no service should be provided at gun point which is the ONLY solution of the state, the state simply corrupts any free market into protectionism... weve never really had free markets, central banks & a state monopoly on the use of force/money sees to that.
@vikramkrishnan Human greed is the underlying theme on the failure of all those social systems. The problem is not the system, its the human genetic propensity towards greed, need to accumulate more than one needs, nepotism, and formation of exclusive groups. The problem lies within the very fabric ''humanity''.
@kennegun - I agree completely with your analysis. The problem is the human condition. It is why that no matter who comes to power, they are very quickly corrupted because of the desire to stay in power.
@kennegun Human greed exists in every system, the problem with the system of common ownership is that it has negative consequnces, while under private ownership you have to serve other peoples needs and wants in order to still your greed. Greed in and of itself is merely material ambition, which is a good thing.
You can not change human nature, but you can accept a system of volountarism that will make sure that even the worst part of human nature work to benefit everyone.
@highway234 So true, and what is so sad is that the solution has been more corporatism and then even socialism (Fannie and Freddie is the largest housing owner in the world now, nationalized banks, car industry, set the healht care system on track to single payer). It's like curing cancer with a shot to the head. The country is going bankrupt and there's no indication that the FED or the treasury has any kind of exist strategy.
@vikramkrishnan weve never seen communism, and I advocate either welfarism(exists throughout europe) or socialism (has not been tried on any national scale).
You could do yourself a favor by learning about different economic systems, those three arent the only ones
@endauthority We've seen plenty of communism, we've seen what happens when you implement it. You can not judge the success of a political system by whether or not it fits with the utopia it is trying to bring about. In the real world we have to deal with what actually happens when you try to implement it.
The economic system of communism have proven to be a complete failure.
Communists should be forced to read bakunin. At least get out of the 19th century. We've learned things since then.
@endauthority Sure it has been tried on many local levels.
I've read Marx... and I think what differs from you and me is that I actually understand it as well. Have you read Bakunin or Lenin?
Communism as defined by Marx is a construct of many things that will never pan out by adopting the system fo governance he wants. You do not define an ideology after the utopia it imagines, but after what happens when you do try to conform of the ideals. We know what happens, complete authoritarianism.
@Visfen first of all no it isnt, second of all communism (according to marx NOT THE USSR, N.KOREA OR CUBA etc) didnt have collective ownership. It abolished all forms of ownership.
This makes sense, because the arguments in favor of ownership dont make sense to begin with.
@endauthority No, Marx did promote collective ownership. Collective organization of the means of production, that's what he wanted. Not under statis rule but under emergent order. The problem being that the emergent order is a market, with primarily private ownership, so human nature here goes against the utopia he thought of. That is why you needed authoritarian force to force it on people
@endauthority Ownership does make sense. If oyu own something you take care of it and you should own what you produce, because you should not be a slave to the collective or anyone else
In order to understand why ownership is favorable and why humans want it you could go about having some kind of economic understanding, Marx has none whatsoever.Or you could simply see what people want desire and behave.We want a system of ownership
I'm against collectivism from a utalitarian and moral position
@Visfen Ownership does not make sense, anyone whose ever argued for it uses non sequiturs, the most famous case is John Locke, who coincidently is the main philosophical influecne of the US constitution.
What you are talking about is an ought, not something that is objectively true.
Marx actually understood economics very well (he was an economist, just not a capitalist one) he agreed with most things capitalist economists said, he just disagreed with their value judgements in some areas (cont)
@endauthority I'm not saying it is objectively true. What I'm saying is that it is a system that benefits all people, we all get to be happier we all get more things.
Arguing for a system of law is not the same as arguing for a system of morality. We create these systems not because of any moral inclination to ownership (although that exists as well) but primarily because it benefits us.
No, he didn't understand it at all. He gets the value system wrong, as he believes in LTV, which is wrong
@Visfen If you argue for a system based on utilitarianism, you fundamentally undermine capitalism.
Its better to have a system where everyone gets a fair shot, that will help society grow. With capitalism, the rich tend to get richer and the poor tend to get poorer.
utilitarianism IS collectivism. You cannot separate the two, they both care about the welfare of others.
Communism and socialism are the enemies of authoritarianism. It requires that people meet on equal power relations. (end 1/2)
@endauthority No I don't. I don't see how you could argue for anything except capitalism if you're an utilitarian.
Capitalism doesn't undermine a fair shot. What are you talking about? Public schooling? Free higher education is the most regressive government scam there is.
The poor are not getting poorer, as a fact, so you're wrong.
Utilitarianism is collective value, but it's not collectivism. We're better of when we care about ourselves than others
time com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962753,00 html
Fact: middle class is shrinking
first world countries with better equality are taking important scientific jobs FROM the united states (hydron collider) also the fact that everyone in many euro countries have access to education means they have more opportunities than we do. Norway has a better standard of living than the United States does. Cuba has been education and healthcare according to the un (continued)
@endauthority Uh, no. I can't get the page to work but I reckon you're refering to household income statistics as that's the only one that's gone down the past 30 years. The problem with that being that single households are more the norm now, so of course the household income has gone down.
Huh? better income equality then? Meaningless and stupid measure. Income is not distributed. If you create more wealth you get more wealth, kinda a duh!-statement.
@endauthority Cuba doesn't have better education or healthcare. How ignorant can you be. Not by any index and especially not looking at actual outcomes.
Free education is the most regressive system there is. It doesn't help the poor, it helps the rich. People like me that are gifted, intelligent and come from families that are well of get money from especially those that have the longest working careers to get an education.
Yes, Norway has a better standard of living. Norway is not Communist.
@Visfen We are better when we care about others as equals to ourselves, hence the nature of utlitarianism BEING PURELY COLLECTIVISM. Even you are making a collectivist statement, Rand would hang you.
Theres a reason every fucking capitalist out there avoids utilitarianism, because it lends its self to have a society be more equal. It begs the United States to become a welfare state like Norway, which at this time is a far more successful country in terms of individual capability
@endauthority But collective ownership and collectivism doesn't work as well as individualism and free markets with private ownership to bring about a higher standard of living for everyone, you're simply wrong on how reality works.
Utalitarianism is a value measurer, it's not equal to collectivism. If you can't seperate the two then the problem is in your intellectual capability.
The US is a welfare state you dumbass. In fact you have higher welfare payments than we do in Sweden.
Democracy is just a tribal system, nomatter how dress it up,with what kind of politic rouge,sing it with what politic opera
coltec111 1 week ago
the longer the terms the most corruption there is.
euheide 8 months ago
Government has to be the middle man between the consumer and big business. It cant be too big to hinder growth and it cant be too small so that the criminals in business come out and hurt the consumer. From 2000 to 2010 there were deregulations in government then out came the banks with student loans, credit default swaps, the housing market, Enron. Its sad but this is the reality that we live in.
cesar333 8 months ago
As soon as the common population is pissed off with the way things are, the capitalist shall save face and run away screaming that the people are too stupid to know their own affairs, and flip-flop on democracy, declaring that only bureaucrats and businessmen have the solution. If you believe this obvious Orwellian propaganda, then you're part of the problem.
niriop 10 months ago
Wow...longer terms... the lobbyist would love that.
underyourskindvd 1 year ago
Two prez on alternating terms?
MrBranboom 1 year ago
Her ideas are the worst possible ideas ever. The last thing we should ever do is reduce democracy, the democratic aspects of the system is already watered down beyond recognition.
maqrux 1 year ago
Love her slight accent.
hunterstl 1 year ago
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!
PatricksTime 1 year ago
It seems like nobody understand what she is referencing. Maybe people should take some time and read Bastiat, he very much predicted that this is what democracy would become. A contenst in who can grab the most of the common coffins, robbing each other, trying to come out ahead.
That's why democracy is such a stupid system, that's why a republic is so much better.
Visfen 1 year ago
People sometimes forget the largest benefit of democracy. It was never designed to be the optimal system all the time - the key benefit is that it provides an avenue and flexibility for reform within the system. The alternative is highly destructive. The cost of achieving downside protection is that we give up some of the benefits of brilliant leadership. This environment is highly conducive to compounding over the long run and hence is the most desirable for improving the human condition.
2plus2make4 1 year ago
We separated church and state, why not state and industry?
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
MEXICO? With their massive drug-related crime problem?
BRAZIL? Responsible for the largest deforestation effort in the world?
They're your examples? Now disregarding the fact that the US is fueling both the demand for drugs and for agricultural land in the amazon, i dont think either of these countries have managed to make the best political decisions.
Saktoth 1 year ago
@Saktoth
Is Mexico's drug related crime problem or Brazil's deforestation efforts endemic to any the differences she mentions (e.g. longer terms for public officials)? No. So why do you even bring it up?
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
Bureaucracy is the problem.
DyeTyme 1 year ago
"Democracy is the worst form of government the world has ever known except for all the others." - Winston Churchill
emaildoctor 1 year ago 2
USA = republic.
ignore this video. Lady don't even know what system of government we live in
Pledius 1 year ago
Democracy is EVIL. demon o crazy. Listen. read the pledge of allegence. For the REPUBLIC for which it stands for the people by the people. NOT a democracy. this is slavery for the masses. and corruption for the evil parasitic elites of the world. fk em all. wake up they have bankrupt the country. and they let religion take over this country. Take that evil christianity back to england. take all yall religions back to your homeland. This was a land on spirituality and freedom.
da13thsun 1 year ago
@da13thsun
Democracy means quite literally rule by the "demos" (the mob). I'm not a fan of Democracy because I've learned something in my lowly 25 years on this planet... "the mob" is fucking stupid.
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04 Point taken.. my young friend. Now who do you think the MOb is. The illuminati. is just one group. you have a network of them. We at the bottom and it goes up the pyramid. Just think positive and try not to be part of their matrix. Thats how you beat them. peaceout 1love
da13thsun 1 year ago
@da13thsun
Did you just go all Da Vinci Code on me? The illuminati? Seriously man? Conspiracy theory much?
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04 Okay I see you sleep, so good luck, and watch what the news on the 11th 15th and 22nd, then hola at me or not, I AM 9&13
da13thsun 1 year ago
@da13thsun
The 11th, 15th, and 22nd of what? Every month? Forever? Things happen all the time, including on the 11th, 15th, and 22nd of the month. And what the hell does "I am 9&13" mean? You're a 22 year old?
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04 dude go do you aight. I AM the 9thsun and the 13thborn. you want to know more. go check out my videos. believe what you want. but I know who I AM. I came back on 23dec67 at 12:21. To an apostolic family. I say no more. peace out and good luck.
da13thsun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@da13thsun
I think you mean the 9th "son" and 13th born. And I don't see what that has to do with like... anything. Again, more random dates and times and such. At this point I think you are either in some sort of conspiracy theory cult or just have some personal issues mentally. I wish you well, I guess.
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
Debt-free currency and an end to fractional reserve lending.
etzel33 1 year ago
If the United States would return to being a republic, with a smaller central government, many issues such as education, health care and retirement savings could be handled at the state and local level as dictated by the U.S. Constitution. There are only 16 privelages granted to the federal government by the constitution. All other powers are left to the states and the people.(see the 10th Amendment) Self-Governance, not a nanny state.
7zarc7 1 year ago
Longer terms for the stupid and corrupted people we have in office?! NO! How about reorganizing the political system to keep major corporations the fuck out our policy making. Let's start with that, then maybe put people into office that have a grasp of world issues and technology. Then MAYBE we can talk about extending term limits.
TheAnubisDrake 1 year ago
@TheAnubisDrake
I don't know if I'm for longer terms persay, but consider that we have a serious problem with uninterested, uneducated voters in this country which is WHY we get these terrible politicians in office in the first place. If they had a longer term, it would make the elections more meaningful. People might actually give a damn enough to educate themselves and sift through the bullshit and we might get better politicians.
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04 The problem with the apathy in our country has nothing to do with term limits. It is a result of the system. Why would people vote or even bother to learn about politics if they think their opinion doesn't matter. "I am one in 350Million," they say. "What good is one voice in a storm." Is the cry of the trodden. I agree. Representative democracy has failed us. In the end power consolidation and greed has ended it. The same way the Roman Empire fell so go we after.
TheAnubisDrake 1 year ago
@TheAnubisDrake Amen! It sickens me to see important chairmanships etc given away to pinheads as political rewards while qualified people are passed over.
lunhil12 1 year ago
Take the money out of American politics and the rats will abandon ship, leaving places for those who actually want to work for the public good.
lunhil12 1 year ago 7
@lunhil12
But that is assuming that people that want to rule over others have good intentions, how can you limit a gov without things like a extremely armed citizenry? I think we should focus on freedom of the individual, "public good" will come naturally from that without tyranny.
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
@RyanR3volution Armed citizenry as a solution ? we tried that in the many centuries ago. Look at the factionalism in much of the world and the bloodshed it spawns. No thanks, I prefer social evolution to armed revolution to Americas problems. Corporate capitalism requires endless expansion/exploitation to feed on. It's becoming clear that a new model is needed for the survival of civilised societies lest we start feeding on ourselves like overcrowded microbes in a petri dish.
lunhil12 1 year ago
@lunhil12 We already are.
TheAnubisDrake 1 year ago
@lunhil12
Free people are armed, corporate capitalism is not capitalism and is not a free market. You have no right to tell me what to own. If people are not armed, they are slaves. We have seen what happened to unarmed people, the holocaust, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, the USSR, China, An armed society is a polite society.
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
National Socialism, worked just fine untill the warmongering britts and frence declared war.
"History is written by the victors" - Winston Churchill
Balleflander 1 year ago
@Balleflander Yes, Socialism has been fairly good to the economy and the system of society, BUT the brits and french declared war because of germany's fascism
Sockheadableful 1 year ago
As for this masturbatory discussion, these clowns are nothing more than plain-old vanilla-flavored fascists. They want to further loot the public to maintain, at least for a bit longer, their hopelessly bankrupt financial regime - the very essence of fascist political-economy.
offsprng46 1 year ago
The problem is the quadrillions of dollars of kited, intrinsically worthless gambling debts known as "financial derivatives," created by the mobsters currently inhabiting such cesspools as Wall Street and the City of London. Simultaneous to their creation of this massive, fraudulent bubble, the financier mafiosos have looted and asset-stripped existing industries and infrastructure.
offsprng46 1 year ago
I don't think the problem is the short term politician. Rather that in a Democracy there are to many people "against it" and just as many people "for it" which ends up dragging down the system (in part). But I still love Democracy and will defend it with my life. I do though however think the system needs to be cleaned up. To much corruption has taken hold.
ChameleonLost88 1 year ago
screw democracy, which is just mob rule. Free market authoritarism is the best. Long live singapore!
JulianThePhilosopher 1 year ago
Is it just an irony that Dambisa's former employer, Goldman Sachs, had more to do with the global financial meltdown than any other corporation in the world?
If you'd like to see how Goldman Sachs and other CROOKS scammed us in 2008, see "Griftopia" written by Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi. It's a meticulously written expose'.
I especially like his chapter on Greenspan, "The Biggest Asshole in the Universe."
goog2k 1 year ago
When your a Liability to the World = Thats the Problem
plking1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think that we all need to realise that oliticias are not in the business of fixing problems, they are in the business of getting re-elected so therefore long term problem will never be addressed because they are not issues which the population take into account in the short term
ccafg 1 year ago
I think that we all need to realise that oliticias are not in the business of fixing problems, they are in the business of getting re-elected so therefore long term problem will never be addressed because they are not issues which the population take into account in the short term
ccafg 1 year ago
The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority".
GO FIGURE!!!
FOBmzunguREPTILICUS 1 year ago
I hesitantly agree with Moyo on the longer terms bit; however, the incentives idea is deeply flawed. it would work only if we knew in advance what constitute an achievement in society; also skewed incentive structure would lead to disaster. In ancient Rome, for instance, in the 3rd century when military skill was incentivized, every tin-pot general tried to become Emperor,leading to 50-100 years of political strife; In Renaissance Italy, it was wealth& you got the Medici, Sforzas etc.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
If we followed her advice in this day and age it would just mean even more power for the plutocrats who have by now thoroughly infiltrated and bought out the political process in North America. "Fast track" policy would just mean more money and privileges for Wall Street and Bay Street because it would be their pawns doing the policy formation.
blackiron60 1 year ago
Every time there is an economic crisis the same old arguments abt democracy failing are regurgitated; in the 1890s, there were clamors for a stronger monarchy with an aristocracy; in the 1930s, it was Stalinism and Fascism; now our latest obsession is the Chinese system.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
And the federal reserve voted for raising the debt ceiling? No, congress is the problem. And congresses is voted in to power. But it is not democracy at fault. It is voter stupidity and complacency.
AndrzejWLipski 1 year ago
Many of the ill's of western society can be traced to the media and the dramatization of politics for the purpose of entertainment. More people die on the roads than have died at the hands of terrorists for example but how much political pressure is there to do something about the road toll ?It's not a voting issue because it isn't entertaining enough !
99truckstop 1 year ago
why not 30 year terms like they have if north africa?. idiot. and errr. streamlined decision making IS another way of saying authoritarianism. Boof head. These professors/doctors are soo irrelevant.
simonty1811 1 year ago
@simonty1811 Agreed, she wants Authoritarian Capitalism: which isn't at all surprising considering her background (see video description).
bulldogger 1 year ago
I'd encourage people to read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He deals with the time preference incentive of politicians in a very articulate manner.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
Anarcho-capitalism is the anwser.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
So many words so little content.
slonamu 1 year ago
The problem with American democracy is that America is a country that glorifies blind faith, junk food, shallow consumerism and a fear of real change. These ideals have been instilled for so long that the average voter is a reactionary simpleton who votes based on keywords and tradition. Few care about REAL issues and intead focus on small or imagined problems & care more what a politician says than does. They are stupid & easily distracted & the government depends on that to stay in power.
blackkakari 1 year ago
the debt crisis is due to the fact that capitalism exists. Capitalism is the problem.
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority
No, the debt crisis is because of war, borrowing, and the hyper-inflation of the dollar caused by the Federal Reserve over-printing money.
katey1dog 1 year ago
very good
NrrN00 1 year ago
Canada has undefined terms, and we're doing just fine.
Phariadify 1 year ago
I don't identify with labels. I am me.
Marxism is based upon communism and I preach neither. I identify basic truths.
Profit and Interest are theft of of labor. You can draw a wage for your labor and apply procurement costs of raw material. Any added subjective value (interest and profit) are theft and to balance the equation labor must be added.
This is part of the matrix that binds you.
The air is thin up here but I believe in your abilities.
Think it through.
It will come to you.
Darkhorse21x 1 year ago
I don't identify with labels. I am me.
Marxism is based upon communism and I preach neither. I identify basic truths.
Profit and Interest are theft of of labor. You can draw a wage for your labor and apply procurement costs of raw material. Any added subjective value (interest and profit) are theft and to balance the equation labor must be added.
This is the matrix that binds you.
The air is thin up here but I believe in your abilities.
Think it through.
It will come to you.
Darkhorse21x 1 year ago
I don't identify with labels. I am me.
Marxism is based upon communism and I preach neither. I identify basic truths.
Profit and Interest are the of of labor. You can draw a wage for your labor and apply procurement costs of raw material. Any added subjective value (interest and profit) are theft and to balance the equation labor must be added.
This is the matrix that binds you.
The air is thin up here but I believe in your abilities.
Think it through.
It will come to you.
Darkhorse21x 1 year ago
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
A Republic is two wolves and a WELL-ARMED lamb contesting the vote.
--Benjamin Franklin.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@katey1dog capitalism is for the lamb. all lambs need a shepard, all shepards consume their lamb.
Capitalism is slavery.
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority
Capitalism is not the issue...
Corporatism is. The mergence of governance and capitalism to form a singular governance is tyranny.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@katey1dog The mergence of governance and capitalism to form a singular governance is what capitalism is all about. What you mean with 'capitalism' is entrepreneurship and free enterprise.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@13otany13ay The mergence of governance and capitalism to form a singular governance is what capitalism is all about.
No, that's more akin to FASCISM.
What you mean with 'capitalism' is entrepreneurship and free enterprise.
Damn right. That is INDEED capitalism.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@katey1dog Corporatism is a form of capitalism, any system where capital is the basic idea of the economic system is capitalism. Idiots like Ron Paul use corporatism as a scape goat for the inevitable path capitalism goes down. When money doesnt help one gain power any more, politics is next.
Any form of capitalism is tyranny, including the freest of markets. The one who owns the property is the slave master.
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority Corporatism is a form of capitalism
No. The mergence of state power with capitol growth is called fascism. It enlargens government with capital growth and ensures a corporate safety plan in the case of failure. Basically, it is socialism for the wealthy.
any system where capital is the basic idea of the economic system is capitalism
Duh. It works for me.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@katey1dog 1) Corporatism is not synonymous with Fascism, especially in it's modern sense of 'McDonalds making government policy' or 'government supporting special interests', rather than in the original Fascist/Catholic sense of creating a mechanism whereby workers and manufacturers demands are meditated by a elected chamber of Technocrats, preventing strikes and nullifying demands for nationalisation of industry.
2) Mussolini defined Corporatism as a from of Capitalism, "Heroic Capitalism".
DerBlitzStag 1 year ago
@DerBlitzStag Fascist Corporatism, suffice to say, exists nowhere in the world today.
DerBlitzStag 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@endauthority Any form of capitalism is tyranny, including the freest of markets. The one who owns the property is the slave master.
No, the growth of individual liberty and a non-invasive tax code betters society. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, the abandonment of the gold standard we have seen depressions and recessions which only benefit the wealthy, guarantees security for banking cartels, and ensures and protects big government.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@endauthority LOL your fighting a losing battle.
bulldogger 1 year ago
@endauthority Any form of capitalism is tyranny, including the freest of markets. The one who owns the property is the slave master.
Capitalism is not tyranny. It's exacting and at times brutal, but capitalism has made the poor become middle class or wealthy.
Property does not create slavery. Government does. Governments build prisons, steals our property (income), and can jail us for TOKING.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@katey1dog
Workers became wealthier when capital was regulated & taxed most; 30s-70s.
'Trickledown' was called that precisely because it was an excuse for cuts.
Credit agencies cite tax-evasion as the main reason they just downgraded Greece again.
USA already has the most privatized prisons, forced labour = profit, thus 1/4 of ALL prisoners in the world are Americans now. look it up.
Most Socialised places in EU have smallest prison populations. closing prisons in Holland ATM (not enough crime)
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed
1. You crucially ignore Stagflation in the 70s
2. The cuts had to be made in the 80s to avoid becoming Zimbabwe.
3. Your average Greek scarcely pays for the public services he uses. You conveniently omit that fact
4. True. Decriminalize drug use and end the three strike law; and you have solved that problem
5. What abt Switzerland? All the facts you state abt low crime and small prison populations hold true for the Swiss as well.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan
Even Switzerland has a form of socialised healthcare, no profits allowed for standard cover. ie no market.
Markets only for perks.
Stagflation was a con, shock doctrine to trash the system into the shit we have now.. a fraud committed by weight of vested interests accumulated by banks, oil, arms, Reagan, Thatcher & Murdoch. Not a conspiracy, many city spivs openly talk about this.
Free-market hype saw a huge shift of wealth to the top 1%.
80% have only 7% left between them now.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@endauthority
Ha, an anti-Capitalist complaining about "tyranny." I love it.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@endauthority Propose an alternative. In history we have seen the following alternatives to capitalism:
1. Feudalism
2. Communism
3. Fascist corporatism
None of them have worked, to put it mildly
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago 11
@vikramkrishnan Anarchy, or the smallest/neutered gov't possible, basically capitalism without the government monopoly on force, violence or theft.
The problem wit our capitalism model in the west is that corporations own our politicans, who write laws to give their companies advantages, it's fascism really, especially when we factor the large banking cartels who own pretty much everyone. They can only do this because of the state's monopoly on force.
Government is our problem
GtheMVP 1 year ago
@GtheMVP I partly agree with you. There is too much government interference in the workings of the market and it is leading to serious imbalances globally. Historically, government backed corporatist private enterprise, like the East India Company, has resulted in serious exploitation and poverty. However, the assumption that if the government were to cease to act, or if private enterprise were to exist w/o any checks and balances, there would be no coercion is a bit too optimistic.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan We're always going to have sociopaths and control freaks to deal with, we just shouldn't create public paying jobs them :D
GtheMVP 1 year ago
@GtheMVP Absolutely true. The problem with the West today is; that the original ideal of three independent branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary exerting checks and balances on each other no longer exists. You have a legislature that will say and do anything to get funding and votes; an executive that has no legislative control over it; and an overactive judiciary that has decided to perform the task of the legislature and entered into the law making business.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@GtheMVP I prefer a system as outlined by Polybius, Montesquieu and Burke where popular power, legal systems and capital exist each imposing balances on the other. It would involve a minarchist, instead of an anarchist government; an independent judiciary - not the joke that currently exists in the US with Scalia, Kagan and Thomas; and a broadly free market economy. The details would have to vary depending on place and time, evolving based on the unique history of that nation.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan state capitalism
JulianThePhilosopher 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan "Capitalism," as the word is currently used, is just as vague, nebulous, and meaningless a term as "socialism." The fraudulent debate over "capitalism" vs. "socialism" is a stylistic debate, not a substantive one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the really substantial issues of economic policy: credit for productive facilities, investment in basic infrastructure, scientific research and conversion into workable technology, increasing the productive power of labor, etc.
offsprng46 1 year ago
@offsprng46 The distinction between capitalism and socialism can very simply be defined as the difference between the private and public ownership of the means of production. Societies can be classified as such depending on which one is the dominant mode. There exist different subtypes of capitalism not all of which are beneficial to society. Egs of the different types of capitalism include: Monopolistic, free market, state corporate etc. depending on the political basis for market behavior.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@offsprng46 I agree that the debate currently is to some measure stylistic. Post 1989, there is no serious socialist alternative to capitalism as a world system. Most countries now are mixed economies. Credit for productive facilities would be better obtained from private sources that would invest based on a cost benefit analysis, as opposed to what Japan did in the 80s and 90s. Scientific research depends not only on funding but also on the socio-political environment.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@offsprng46 For instance,the current obstacles to stem cell research have no valid economic or scientific basis. They are the consequence of political meddling in issues that people and politicians poorly understand.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan Meritocracy with focus on democratic elections at the lowest level in the government. The closer the candidates are to their voters the better choice the voters will make. Let only the people who went through every step in the governmental ladder based on their performance be able to take part in the elections the the senate or the house of representatives or whatever you have there.
It's really quite simple.
S0chan 1 year ago
@S0chan Again,the problem here is what are your metrics for measuring performance? It cannot simply be how closely a person's policy decisions tally with the short term objectives of the people. Popular emotions can and have been manipulated in the past; say for instance, Cleon, who whipped up Athenian fury during the Peloponnesian War, to the Bush crowd exploiting post 9/11 fears to launch the Iraq War. Popular sentiment isn't always rational; foresight is rare, while hindsight is commonplace.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan A fair point, and I don't think I have a good enough response at the moment.
S0chan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan Markets, have worked very well.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen At destroying the environment, Spiraling the multitudes into abject poverty while propelling the few to heights of unimaginable wealth.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun i think your confused. your thinking of statism.
JAROSLAVAGINA 1 year ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Statism can have the same effects on the above mentioned. One can also argue that statism is masquerading as capitalism.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun That has to do wtih the tragedy of the commons, which stems from a lack of respect for property rights on the enovirment.
And no, nobody has gotten poor from the free market, everyone is getting richer.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen "commons" ?? Property is owned by a very few, not shared equally amongst the commons. Hardin himself acknowledged this flaw in his concept.
Majority of the populations of Latin America, Africa and Asia will disagree with you. eg. India 35% illeteracy, leper colonies, shanty towns and open sewers is also the place of a 1 billion dollar mansion.
Are we ''Richer'' ? Having a TV and a car on a dead planet?
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun the obvious flaw in this thinking is that latin america, africa and asia have not always operated under a free market system. if anything, your evidence proves visfen's point.
JAROSLAVAGINA 1 year ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA These continents were exploited by the free market system.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun imperial collonialism is not a free market system. neither were the "reforms" of pinochet. and those that are the worst off, (especially in south america) became that way, only after very anti-freemarket "reforms" were put in place.
JAROSLAVAGINA 1 year ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA The so-called free market system (Its not really free when you go deep into it -e.g. you wouldn't have bail-out plans in a free market system for starters but thats another topic) uses propped up dictators like Pinochet (who was placed there with US backing ..& there are many, many others like him) to exploit the resources of those countries to benefit corporate interest, they also benefit us as well. Who pays the price are the poor farmers and people in those countries.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun except for what you just described is statism and is in no way a free market system. are you trying to prove me right? i'm confused at what your position is.
JAROSLAVAGINA 11 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA You seem to be confused of what a free market system is as well. Its a system that can only exist as a transitory phase, if it can exist at all. Statism is the inevitable outcome. Whether, you prefer the tyranny of the private individual or the tyranny of the State is up to you.
kennegun 11 months ago
@kennegun wrong. you have either the tyranny of the state, or the tyranny of individuals empowered by the state. i have no clue what your talking about anymore, and i am willing to bet you don't either. good day.
JAROSLAVAGINA 11 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Your getting close. Except those individuals don't necessarily have to be empowered by the state. If you were to study history (the real history, not the watered down, distorted, contorted version that is taught in the state run educational system to make you into a good soildier as you seem to be), you'd have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Knowing bits and pieces about political and economic ideology is leaving you myopic. TC
kennegun 11 months ago
@kennegun "If you were to study history (the real history, not the watered down, distorted, contorted version that is taught in the state run educational system to make you into a good soildier as you seem to be)"
Thanks for proving my point for me. good day.
JAROSLAVAGINA 11 months ago
@kennegun And private property is maintained very well, public property however is not, which the environment is. It's not a problem that property is not shared, it's no flaw, it's serves a purpose.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that there's a free market in the third world? There's not, look at the heritage foundation of economic freedom.
Yes, we're richer and the planet is not dying don't be a an idiot.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen Clear cutting is done on Private land. Mono-culturing is done on private land. Mining is done on private land. The ''third world'' has been exploited and raped by the free market.
Planet is not dying? mmm . look up, global warming, eutrophication, ozone depletion, soil erosion/depletion, habitat loss and geometric extinction of flora and fauna, smog pollution, increasing rates of cancer and respiratory diseases, scarcity of clean/fresh water sources, desertification, ect ect ect..
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun Which private land? I don't know of any. I only know of land that is LEASED which is something entirely different.
As long as there's a secondary market you will lose money by not planting new trees.
The third world is being raped by voluntary trade? What? No they are not, these are the least free economies in the world.
No, the planet is not dying. Get f@cking real. We've done some damage to be sure but killing it? Please, you're insane if you think that.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen
Leased/ Private/Government owned, there all roses by different names. The point is that we as a people(the majority) have no direct say in what is done to the environment.
??
3rd wrld: They're not free because of the dictators we prop up (in most cases). These autocrats serve capitalist purposes.
Most scientists have ample data to back my claim. 3100 of them signed a anti-global warming petition. No one singed a counter petition claiming that evrything was fine.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun Nope. It's a big difference in owning something and borrowing it. In the case of the later you really don't care what happens to it do you?
Sure, they serve capitalistS purposes but that's not capitalism. Leave the retarded class-theory democratic-warfare-nonsense in the sewers where it belongs.
Uh, that's not the same thing as the planet dying. Big difference. Sure global warming is real, but we can save more lives with cheap energy than caring about emissions.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen Outcome is the same in either case. So they serve a capitalist purpose, but they're communist? ???
Lastly, eating the seeds will only save lives in the short term.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun You're not making any sense. Outcome is not the same when you borrow or own land. When you borrow land you lose money planting trees, when you buy it you make money. That's why private ownership of forest, just by looking at surveys done in the US, show that private land is managed better and cheaper.
Eating the seed? What are you talking about. Eating the seeds is exactly the only thing we do in common ownership. Nothing is as destructive to the enovirment as common ownership.
Visfen 1 year ago
@kennegun Besides, it doesn't matter what damage we do to the "planet" what it matters is the damage we do to the environment that could have instead benefited us. That again is a problem with ownership.
The thing is though, nature in and of itself is a pretty darn inhospitable place. That's why we have to bend it so that we can live in and not die of diseases and being eaten by lions. The question is if the damage we do is less than the benefit and it is.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen I agree that ownership is a problem. A few owning evrything is a bigger problem than the majority owning it. I prefer the term borrow from future generations. mmm ... that sounds too socialist maybe??
Agreed. TC
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun No, you're incorrect. The best system is where the most productive in using the land owns the land. For instance, if the Indians were allowed to use all of the midwest and south as their primitive hunting ground the world would lose like 50% of its' potential farmland. It's not an effective use of resources, it's just stupid.
So we want those that manage the land best to own it. Which often are a select few.
Yes, socialism is pretty damn terrible so I'd stay away from that.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen
How about who owns the land can use it? Who can best use it is subjective and leads to an authoritarian approach where someone gets to pick the winners and losers.
xOutlaw6x 1 year ago
@xOutlaw6x Well since property rights come from using the land that is just stupid. You can't actually own land under free market property rights, you can merely own what is on it. Like a well, a house, trees, bushes, the dirt, the soil and the grops you grow.
That's the best system of managing anything.
You're telling me there's no non-subjective way in determinig value? *Facepalm* Of Course it's subjective, but let it be done by market evaluation so everyone worth anything get a say.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen
I have no idea what your calling stupid or what your viewpoint is.
My position is it doesn't matter who can "best" use the or what a majority of people think it should be used for, it "should" be used for whatever purpose the person who owns it wants.
xOutlaw6x 11 months ago
@Visfen
Have you read anything about Native Americans aka "Indians" ? From your comments it seems you lack the most fundamental knowledge of pre-Colombus Americas.
Have you read Marx and Engel? If you have, you'd know we never achieved anything close to a socialist system they described.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun The south and midwest were pretty much empty. No farmers at least.
I have, you clearly haven't read Bakunin or Lenin though. As Lenin describes the problem with socialism is that it goes against human nature, so you have to brainswash people, that's his solution. Bakunin's solution is market anarchism which is the only thing that has come even close to common ownership. Dveloped upon those ideas have been done later one with better economic science, the result is anarcho capitalism.
Visfen 1 year ago
@kennegun As an Indian, let me disabuse of the notion you have that the problems of India have to do with free markets; the problems of India have much more to do with socialism. For 40 years, we had a 2% rate of growth and a 2-3% rate of population growth. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan which all started out with India in nearly similar economic circumstances, but chose a free market system have eradicated poverty, disease and illiteracy.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan
1) India or any other nation has never been a true socialist country. According to Marx, A socialist system will inevitably rise out of a modern industrial capitalist economy. Don't mistake it with Stalinism or Leninism or autocratic rule. Problems with India are many not just ''free markets''. Japans modernization began with the Meiji Restoration in 1856. They did not have to contend with ''colonialism'' ; they also had a 100 year head start compared to India.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun Post WW2 Japan was flattened. They managed to rise out of the ashes. Even under colonialism the problems remained the same: lack of free markets, coercive government, low rate of growth.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan Japan didn't have the resources or the money to pull itself out of anything after WW2. American money helped establish state mechanisms tht have already existed. State building has never worked. Read Francis Fukiyama. "State Building" . British colonialism, India was a servant; it WAS the market. Growth! ? British didn't give a fck about Indian growth during their occupation. Look up Churchill and Gandhi, ReOrient, History of the British Empire and India a History in Amazon
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun Man it's so annoying with people who have read Marx and don't understand it... please read Bakunin at least. The only socialists that even make sense are the mutualists
We have tried marx ideas,the problem is that in order to implement them you have to force them down peoples throat because people don't really want common ownership. Then you get an authoritarian state. That is the result of the ideas.The utopian picture will never be realized because it doesn't understand human nature
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen Greed is in human nature, but don't you think that our modern capitalist system and mass media nurture that lust for material wealth by drilling into us to buy,buy,buy? 12 billion people by 2050. Evryone of them aiming at American style of consumption is suicide for the eco-system. It is NOT sustainable. We have to redefine our concept of success and wealth. Many societies have existed in the past, where the individuals had no concept of ownership. Greed is not our destiny.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun The richer we are the fewer children we have, so the only way to "solve" that problem is to make sure that the third world also get to benefit from free trade and free markets like China and all the tiger economies have.
I don't see a problem in that we are instilled with material ambition, in order to get wealth we have to create it. That's how a market works.
Yes, and they have been far less successful. To take an american example, the Plymouth colony. People starved.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen The reason ppl in poor countries have lots of children is because they have no old age social security net to take care of them when they are unable to work. More children one has, more comfortable one is in old age. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Religion, and gender inequality plays a large part as well.
People starving in Plymouth colony is news to me. I read it was annexed. I wasn't there, so I'm not sure.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun So they don't have a bankrupt system that transfers wealth from poor younger people to rich elderly white folks, that's why they have more children? No, the fact is that if you don't have more people, the family will starve, even though the parents are not even 35.
The Plymouth colony's had a collective ownership system the first years. It was a disaster. This is where the tragedy of the commons expression comes from. So he split the land, private ownership, everyone was better of
Visfen 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan
2) Korea/ Taiwan had massive US aid to build up their economies to counter communist China and NOrth Korea. Same with reconstruction of Germany; to counter Soviet ''threat''. The countries you mentioned also has a much much smaller and homogeneous population to control. The progress India has made is respectable compared to where it started from. India cannot be compared to these other countries. Corruption is also at the heart of Indian problems.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun South Korea and Japan were completely devastated by the Korean and Second World Wars. Korean per capita income was half that of India. The economic progress that India has made has been in the last 2 decades of freer markets and decreasing government controls. Corruption in India arose because of government control of the economy. When you need 20 people to stamp one document to get a telephone connection that is vital for your business, officials will demand & people will pay bribes.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan Corruption has existed in India and evrywhere else for a very long long time. Its a cancer of any long existing social systems. GDP is sometimes misleading. Majority of Indians have not gained anything expect an entrenchment of poverty from crony capitalism. If you read Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations, who was the first to identify what a true capitalist system is in the mid 1700s, you would realize, nothing today even resembles a true capitalist economy.
kennegun 1 year ago
@Visfen Agreed. When did I deny it?
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan i agree... but its also true that state capitalism leads to what we have now, which is a corporatist/socialist hybrid system that clearly isnt working! what we need is free market voluntaryism of some kind, no service should be provided at gun point which is the ONLY solution of the state, the state simply corrupts any free market into protectionism... weve never really had free markets, central banks & a state monopoly on the use of force/money sees to that.
djdnauk1977 1 year ago 2
@vikramkrishnan Human greed is the underlying theme on the failure of all those social systems. The problem is not the system, its the human genetic propensity towards greed, need to accumulate more than one needs, nepotism, and formation of exclusive groups. The problem lies within the very fabric ''humanity''.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun - I agree completely with your analysis. The problem is the human condition. It is why that no matter who comes to power, they are very quickly corrupted because of the desire to stay in power.
7zarc7 1 year ago
@kennegun Human greed exists in every system, the problem with the system of common ownership is that it has negative consequnces, while under private ownership you have to serve other peoples needs and wants in order to still your greed. Greed in and of itself is merely material ambition, which is a good thing.
You can not change human nature, but you can accept a system of volountarism that will make sure that even the worst part of human nature work to benefit everyone.
Visfen 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan true. here in the US we're currently witnessing the failure of corporate fascism.
highway234 1 year ago
@highway234 So true, and what is so sad is that the solution has been more corporatism and then even socialism (Fannie and Freddie is the largest housing owner in the world now, nationalized banks, car industry, set the healht care system on track to single payer). It's like curing cancer with a shot to the head. The country is going bankrupt and there's no indication that the FED or the treasury has any kind of exist strategy.
Visfen 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan weve never seen communism, and I advocate either welfarism(exists throughout europe) or socialism (has not been tried on any national scale).
You could do yourself a favor by learning about different economic systems, those three arent the only ones
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority We've seen plenty of communism, we've seen what happens when you implement it. You can not judge the success of a political system by whether or not it fits with the utopia it is trying to bring about. In the real world we have to deal with what actually happens when you try to implement it.
The economic system of communism have proven to be a complete failure.
Communists should be forced to read bakunin. At least get out of the 19th century. We've learned things since then.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen communism has never been tried because in order for it to happen all governments in the world must collapse.
Without that prerequisite, you cant call it communism.
You should actually read marx, what he called communism had NOTHING to do with what the average idiot calls communism.
Communism defined by Marx was unlimited freedom, what Lenin and all them did was slavery.
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority Sure it has been tried on many local levels.
I've read Marx... and I think what differs from you and me is that I actually understand it as well. Have you read Bakunin or Lenin?
Communism as defined by Marx is a construct of many things that will never pan out by adopting the system fo governance he wants. You do not define an ideology after the utopia it imagines, but after what happens when you do try to conform of the ideals. We know what happens, complete authoritarianism.
Visfen 1 year ago
@endauthority Collective ownership is slavery, that's the fucking point. That's what happens!
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen first of all no it isnt, second of all communism (according to marx NOT THE USSR, N.KOREA OR CUBA etc) didnt have collective ownership. It abolished all forms of ownership.
This makes sense, because the arguments in favor of ownership dont make sense to begin with.
1.Take something out of its state of nature
2. Modify it
3. ???
4. Ownership(Profit!!!!)
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority No, Marx did promote collective ownership. Collective organization of the means of production, that's what he wanted. Not under statis rule but under emergent order. The problem being that the emergent order is a market, with primarily private ownership, so human nature here goes against the utopia he thought of. That is why you needed authoritarian force to force it on people
Visfen 1 year ago
@endauthority Ownership does make sense. If oyu own something you take care of it and you should own what you produce, because you should not be a slave to the collective or anyone else
In order to understand why ownership is favorable and why humans want it you could go about having some kind of economic understanding, Marx has none whatsoever.Or you could simply see what people want desire and behave.We want a system of ownership
I'm against collectivism from a utalitarian and moral position
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen Ownership does not make sense, anyone whose ever argued for it uses non sequiturs, the most famous case is John Locke, who coincidently is the main philosophical influecne of the US constitution.
What you are talking about is an ought, not something that is objectively true.
Marx actually understood economics very well (he was an economist, just not a capitalist one) he agreed with most things capitalist economists said, he just disagreed with their value judgements in some areas (cont)
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority I'm not saying it is objectively true. What I'm saying is that it is a system that benefits all people, we all get to be happier we all get more things.
Arguing for a system of law is not the same as arguing for a system of morality. We create these systems not because of any moral inclination to ownership (although that exists as well) but primarily because it benefits us.
No, he didn't understand it at all. He gets the value system wrong, as he believes in LTV, which is wrong
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen If you argue for a system based on utilitarianism, you fundamentally undermine capitalism.
Its better to have a system where everyone gets a fair shot, that will help society grow. With capitalism, the rich tend to get richer and the poor tend to get poorer.
utilitarianism IS collectivism. You cannot separate the two, they both care about the welfare of others.
Communism and socialism are the enemies of authoritarianism. It requires that people meet on equal power relations. (end 1/2)
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority No I don't. I don't see how you could argue for anything except capitalism if you're an utilitarian.
Capitalism doesn't undermine a fair shot. What are you talking about? Public schooling? Free higher education is the most regressive government scam there is.
The poor are not getting poorer, as a fact, so you're wrong.
Utilitarianism is collective value, but it's not collectivism. We're better of when we care about ourselves than others
Communism is authoritarianism at its core
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen
time com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962753,00 html
Fact: middle class is shrinking
first world countries with better equality are taking important scientific jobs FROM the united states (hydron collider) also the fact that everyone in many euro countries have access to education means they have more opportunities than we do. Norway has a better standard of living than the United States does. Cuba has been education and healthcare according to the un (continued)
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority Uh, no. I can't get the page to work but I reckon you're refering to household income statistics as that's the only one that's gone down the past 30 years. The problem with that being that single households are more the norm now, so of course the household income has gone down.
Huh? better income equality then? Meaningless and stupid measure. Income is not distributed. If you create more wealth you get more wealth, kinda a duh!-statement.
And you can't TAKE a job from someone.
Visfen 1 year ago
@endauthority Cuba doesn't have better education or healthcare. How ignorant can you be. Not by any index and especially not looking at actual outcomes.
Free education is the most regressive system there is. It doesn't help the poor, it helps the rich. People like me that are gifted, intelligent and come from families that are well of get money from especially those that have the longest working careers to get an education.
Yes, Norway has a better standard of living. Norway is not Communist.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen We are better when we care about others as equals to ourselves, hence the nature of utlitarianism BEING PURELY COLLECTIVISM. Even you are making a collectivist statement, Rand would hang you.
Theres a reason every fucking capitalist out there avoids utilitarianism, because it lends its self to have a society be more equal. It begs the United States to become a welfare state like Norway, which at this time is a far more successful country in terms of individual capability
(continued)
endauthority 1 year ago
@endauthority But collective ownership and collectivism doesn't work as well as individualism and free markets with private ownership to bring about a higher standard of living for everyone, you're simply wrong on how reality works.
Utalitarianism is a value measurer, it's not equal to collectivism. If you can't seperate the two then the problem is in your intellectual capability.
The US is a welfare state you dumbass. In fact you have higher welfare payments than we do in Sweden.
Visfen 1 year ago