If one country's work force gets educated they no longer accept to be treated as slaves -> the corporations leave that country -> economy goes to hell - > population living standard drops -> education drops -> next generations will work for almost nothing ( slavery )-> corporations comeback -> people get educated again due to rise in living standard and so on...
It's a vicious cycle, there is no "creation of wealth" just a distribution. A very unfair distribution as 99% of the world can see.
@cr4yv3n In other words, we all live in caves and no one else got the memo. Gotcha. In actual fact, as most of the world CAN see, is that capitalism has been directly and entirely responsible for 300 years of improving living standards, compensation and working conditions, particularly for workers and the poor, creating vast amounts of wealth such that the US now has the wealthiest "poor" in the world.
Anyone pushing the "wage slavery" canard isn't going to be taken seriously anyway.
Happy to prove this capitalist looser geek wrong again. look at the USSR, 70% of it economy was destroyed from WWII, 28 MILLION Soviets died from the nazi-rats, and they quickly rebuilt everything through Socialism and were the first nation to space and a major threat to USA imperialism, even though when the USSR was founded to begin with it was already over 100 years behind the west.
@MaoistLeninistMarx Happy to prove this communist loser (no one has been less tightened) wrong again. Look at the USSR, from the time of its inception until its inevitable collapse the Soviet economy stagnated. That they rebuilt their military and put a man in obit was done by bankrupting the domestic economy - which is why it collapsed. The economic "success" of the Soviet Union has been so completely debunked, I'm amazed anyone is still attempting tyo purvey such nonsense.
Capitalism actually does not create innovation you looser nerd with no balls (apparent do to the spandex skin-tight high shorts) . Even in the US the important innovations came from the Federal Government or NON-PROFITS (without profit motive), the polio vaccine (the USA's only medical innovation worth talking about) came from a NON-PROFIT organization, NASA was a government organization (not for profit), Computer-chips were created through government funds, so even in US capitalism is wrong
@MaoistLeninistMarx Wow. Since, in actual fact, capitalism has been proven to spur innovation (non-profits still work within a capitalist framework of resource allocation) and the overwhelming majority of innovation, including medical innovation, is privately funded (two-thirds in OECD countries and even more in the US) you suffer from a common problem of Maoists, Leninists and Marxists in that you never even come remotely close to getting your facts straight.
Great video, these Socialist are nuts, they want to apply their theory to our money. Capitalism is just freedom, Socialism is for those who are so arrogant that they think they have the right to tell you how to spend your money.
@MaoistLeninistMarx Why does capitalism even need war? You have to actually build a model adjusted for factors and statistically derive the validity of this statement or provide a peer reviewed research paper on this very topic. This is equivalent to saying X organization is racist because Y% of members are racist whilst the population "pool" is Z% racist. Is there a statistically significant difference is the real question !!!
War is unprofitable, even in a statist society where the cost is bourne on all taxpayers instead of coming directly out-of-pocket by supporters.
Come on dude, if you're against "capitalism" (whatever it's supposed to mean since it's got a thousand different definitions at this point) that's fine but don't strawman. lol.
As fiat currency value drops the need and cost of real assets(natural resources) increases.
What is Iraq?
What is Lybia?
Resources. US 's "investment cost" in this matter is almost nothing.Their projected income for "rebuilding" and "exploitation of resources" will overshadow any war costs.They also nail down Iran and China's trading partners.
1) According to the DoD, the defense budget adds roughly 7 billion to the debt (with speculation that it may be more). Assuming the resources extracted from foreign nations rests on a plethora of assertions like perfect information, static conditions, and is speculative at best. In the long run even those who benefit from war in short-term process (those in control of the money supply and closest to circulation) feel the effects as the currency is undervalued by rising prices.
@fountainherz The thing you're missing out is that :
A) the general population was never intended as the beneficiary party of such income /resources. The corporations who get the contracts were.
B) Yes indeed the system is short-sighted and in the long run it will cause stagnation, decrease in population income etc
Again you're missing out the point that you were not the intended target of those benefits - you're just tools. And that the current system is so corrupt from the -
@cr4yv3n That A is a problem of the state is certainly true. That B is a problem that exists in reality is patenetly false. No evidence of any kind exists - because its nonsense - that investors place no value in long term returns (the evidence is overwhelming that they DO place value on that). investors shorting companies represent determinations of the value of the company - it is that valuation, not the investor that spells the company's inevitable doom.
On A and B we actually agree then; I don't believe it's for "our" benefits (I'm not defending war btw, I'm anti-war, by closest to circulation I meant the politicians, corporate interests, etc.).
@fountainherz In case you did not know people when pushed too far protest in the streets at first - they don't offer solutions as you suggest. That's why there is a government.
@fountainherz - main capitalist idea and deregulated to such a degree that it value short term growth over long term prosperity.
The sample a few years back with investors betting against their own firms until they drove them into bankruptcy was a clear image of that view that has overtaken our economic system. In its current form , capitalist no longer suits humanity - defending it and more so it PRACTICES is sheer suicide, as more americans are finding out.
@cr4yv3n The Marxian notion that capitalism compresses wages or leads to suicidal results has been thoroughly and completely destroyed by the empirical evidence. It is no accident that every attempt at implementing syndicalism/communism/collectivism/socialism has been an abysmal failure, the vocal minority with views like the OWS crowd, notwithstanding. It's no accident that the backlash against governmnet spending has had a real political impact and OWS is a joke.
Ok, this discussion is over, i cannot believe i even tried to reason with such a lowly person whose view has been SO skewed that fails to see human needs below greed.
Are you a republican supporter too?
"A one man crusade" of what? Or lies?
You blatantly have the NERVE to come here and defend a filth drenched system that not only promotes MASS IMPOVERISHMENT of everyone.
No! Sorry that is NOT a "good system" and the fact that -
@cr4yv3n I sincerely apologize. Objectively, I did make a mistake. Characterizing OWS as a joke overestimates their impact by so many orders of magnitude, I am properly chagrined for having made such a mistake. The fact is that I DO see human needs "beyond greed" and history is irrefutable in its conclusion that capitalism best meets the needs of others while socialism promotes MASS IMPOVERISHMENT. One cannot rationally read history any other way.
@FletchforFreedom said system is actively promoting wars to fuel its existence is disgusting.
The big players in the US do benefit from wars - you keep drawing a parallel to "long term effects" and " population effects" but fail to understand that they do NOT think like that - even though it is dumb.
They want SHORT-TERM profits, they don't care about long term anything. And they got these clowns like you who are on a "one man crusade" defending them for free.
@cr4yv3n Socialism includes state action which is "actively promoting wars" and is disgusting. If your problem is with state action (socialism) then we are completely in accord. If you cannot garsp the distinction ... I am not responsible for your ignorance.
And your assertion that "they" want short-term profits and don't care about long-term anything is completely contrary to reality (else businesses would all have bankryupted long ago). The whole premise is obviously absurd on its face.
Being unemployed is a joke then? Probably is to you - what kind of "school of economics" you have there anyway?
Being not able to even LIVE decently due to insane loans is a joke too?
And let's not bring up how "fair" capitalism is ,since we're at the "let's bash socialism, derp" stage. Last i checked failing bussinesses go BANKRUPT, they don't get bailed out by the PEOPLE.
@cr4yv3n Being unemployed is not a joke. Had the governmnet not meddled in the economy - again - creating the crisis in much the same way it caused the Great Depression, unemployment in the US would follow historical norms and run roughly half that of more socialist Europe. And, under capitalism, businesses fail and do not get bailed out. I's under socialism that businesses are taken over to protect union members.
@FletchforFreedom "vocal minority" - i've been to the US a few months ago and it is WORSE than OWS describes it. You're either in Tra-lala land or are lying through your teeth.
" the cost of resources does not rise when the currency value falls " - uhm...money has no real value really. It is just damn paper printed by a machine, it has NO value, it is not tangible unless WE give it value.
Natural resources are valuable regardless of the economic status - you can do tasks -
@cr4yv3n I am not responsible for your anecdoatl evidence that is contrary to reality either. Nonetheless you inadvertently repeat the point that I was making - natural resources have value/cost regardless of the currency manipulation undertaken by governmnet in order to steal the wealth of savers (again nothing to do with capitalism).
Food you can eat. Fuel you can use for transport and so on.
All these have a given value - regardless. Why do investor and speculators are shifting towards gold and silver?
That resources will not drop in value as it is tangible and unrelated to market fluctuation.
As for capitalism being responsible for 300 years of progress - science would be the one responsible. And capitalism is more of a handbrake - continuously putting its:
@cr4yv3n Investors are moving to gold and silver because they are durable commodities that retain value despite currency manipulation.
As for capitalism being responsible for 300 years of progress - it is because the scientific innovation took place because of capitalism. Modern technology cannot come into being without both an extended division of labor AND a monetary system. Socialism and attempts to interfere with it have demonstrably been the only handbrake.
@cr4yv3n Rail is less cost effcient for most things (due primarily to time, labor and intermediate shipping. There is so little "green power" in the world because it is not even remotely cost effective. It has become moreso, but so have fossil fuels. Mas sproduction has nothing to do with it. If it were possible to close the HUGE gap in cost effectiveness, the market would adopt those alternatives in a heartbeat. They just aren't close to practical.
@cr4yv3n To the contrary, capitalism preceded and enabled modern machines and medicines that couls otherwise not have come into being. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I am simply reciting actual history. If you wish to stick your fingers in your ears and hum so that you don;t have to deal with reality, that's entirely your choice. I will continue to present the historical and economic facts in the face of OWS-style ignorance.
@FletchforFreedom Feel free to reply me, i don't care. I have nothing more to say to you and the fact you consider OWS a joke - aka the people's issues are "a joke" to you proves my point that capitalism supporters are heartless.
And that needs to change. I'm not promoting communism or socialism, but you people are not better than they were back in the 20th century.
@cr4yv3n Finally, understand. I flatly do NOT think "the people's issues" are a joke. I think the people's issues are paramount. What is a joke is the notion that OWS is in any way representing "the people's issues". They are instead demonstrating profound ignorance and are so unbelievably ineffectual a a societal force that there is no chance that they will ever be taken seriously. That's simply justified.
2) Further, as war is a "government expenditure" it is funded by taxation or divertion of resources from the private sector into the public sector, causes economic stagnation (i.e. no "real" growth") as it decreases the incomes of citizens, increases prices, stifles business through allocation (i.e. warfare goods instead of consumer goods(-ever hear the analogy of putting everyone to work by digging ditches?)), and creates uncertainty (blowback, tax-raising).
@cr4yv3n Actually, war is extremely UNprofitable. That it is in the state's interest to project its power and enrich certain individuals has nothing to do with with either overall rofitability or capitalism. And the cost of resources does not rise when the currency value falls (you are confusing cost and price). Still, the devaluation of the currency is a separate issue from that of warfare.
Socialism is all about fighting capitalism, while Capitalism stands for something positive. You can't have socialism without dissing Capitalism, yet Capitalism stands alone as something positive. It's naive to think all CEOs are Mother Teresas, yet socialism won't solve the problem of evil people; capitalism can be made better by training great leaders, leaders who serve their people and yes this video is right capitalism is best for developing countries.
@shadowgeyser I think the people o fallow the politics are retarder to understand what is nature. Go study. Study my country and see what is suffering. I hate politic. You say that, you are a follower of politics. and you're blind for politic. But o i am to judge. You have earned interest on it, not the way to go back. im out.
Capitalism, to me, is the same shit that other policies. Do not move a single finger in the country, and only interested in money and not the health of people for profit. And I do not see love in those policies. In fact, neither makes me want to participate in any. They talk talk talk and they don't make anything. money is the problem. we are in crisis and only brute force us out of crisis, then repeats the sequence. The oney its nothing. Its a manipulator.
@Play671 TVP cares more about eliminating free exchange and equalizing wealth than destroying money per say. It is a historic fact that the introduction of money helped reduce the illiquid drags on the real economy and thus increased real economic growth. TVP is at odds with reality on multiple levels.
@Play671 Evolution is a fact. One doesn't have to "believe" in science and reality. Evolutionary theory is well tested. Evolutionary processes have been observed.
@axe863 You are one of those guys o think o are smart. I am not smart if you whant to know, but i have experience. No politic made good think today. I am not comunist/socialist or any another other politic. I am zero. Second, the politic talk talk talk and they don't do nothing.
@Play671My statements are independent of my level of expertise or general cognitive abilities. If one supports centrally planned economies, one is in the hard leftist authoritarian corner
@axe863 There are many cases (at least in Argentine economic history) in which central planification was used to authoritarily "dictate" market economy and open foreign commerce. However I like to point out 2 things: thumbs up for your dedicated and respectful style. Though I tend to agree more with Play671.
@Play671 But the problem is what they DO; war, misery and another "economic crisis phenomena" for the books, (pain, hunger, anxiety for living beings), comes from what they DO with economy. What the politicians say MASK what they DO, so there's a use in knowing their techniques beforehand. My (bare) knowledge and interest in politics and economy comes from rage. That "unscientific" rage of Macchiavelo or Galileo: "THEY SAY THAT, BUT I SEE THIS"!!! - without their talent o.c.
@Play671 But it's not the money, but its lack or concentration, which makes us slaves. Money (in everyone's hands) means access and diversity, and a flow of posibilities. You see it in the street and you can check it in books, specially in the transit from middle ages to contemporary. A society without money, without trade, undernourished, believing in witches and devils, using a lexicon of avg 500 words, enslaved by sadistic aristocrats... It may be Fox's capitalist(?) dreamland but...
@lunacomputacion To bad, looks like you're changing religion with politics. If we created a base in an economy based on money, so we can create other types savings instead of cash. If you say that the resource-based economy will not work, and that will lead to violence, you'll also have the notion of living without violence? what I see on the streets is poor and not cash flow. People say money, because they don't think in other forms.
@Play671 I don't want religion, I was talking of feudal economy/culture and some "likenesses" with the present. I didn't say there's cash flow now; meant that "when" there's cash, it means access, etc. I never talked against resource-based economies; I said that access to free time and cultural goods for everyone would be easier giving more money to ppl (with the inflationary tradeoff) than inventing a whole new trade system. Perhaps I'm not clear, because English is not my native language.
"It is a historic fact that the introduction of money helped reduce the illiquid drags on the real economy and thus increased real economic growth."
True only if the introduction of money coincides at a rate that is proximal to the growth from innovations that develop the real economy of physical goods and tangible services. If not, then such introduction of money leads to production of intangible services of entertainers, bureaucracy, and rent-seekers.
Let's see you introduce money into an economy to the effect a 5% increase of the total money supply annually for an economy that grows 3% a year in real terms. The reality is if this trend continues, you actually cause many people to incur debts as there is more money being transferred than is justified by production. Prices go up, and people don't act immediately, and so they fall out balance, losing their jobs and income to recession, which reduces real economic growth.
Of course it would be absurd to take capitalism (or any economic theory) as a belief beyond time, society and politics. Which capitalism? Mill's? Queen Victoria's? Keynes's? Reagan's? The strange and corrupted variants that so many countries went through? Will you say, like the "comrades", "oh, but that was not real capitalism" or that I'm an evil bastard from a weak economic system?
@shadowgeyser State Capitalism ...right :P. It wasnt anarcho-communism..that kind of system lives in magical fairy land. It was a far left authoritarian (Marxist-Leninist) system. They were actually surprised when people with central authority with zero checks and balances ... abused their power.
capitalism is evil look at russia ever since 1991 kid on the streets baging for mouny sharing water with dogs and cats most of them are lucky to get food once a week and when i say food i mean like a peace of bread
@smilly456 I love how capitalism increases the carrying capacity of the world, reduces extreme global poverty by 40% in 2 decades and doesn't artificially induce mass starvation/mass cannibalism in Russia/Ukraine ..and yet its evil. How many millions died under the Marxist-Leninist framework for purely artificial reasons?
@smilly456 Russia defaulted on their debt. It is riddled with corruption,has a weak banking/ financial structure and is weakly interconnected.....what do you expect. Also, defaulting on their debt increased their borrowing costs etc Finance 101. Capitalism doesn't promise you magical unicorns that cry skittles. Capitalism isnt based on theoretical masturbation, its reality.
@hesteaeble This comment is nonsensical if you watched my video. Where do I speak of an immediate spike in individual wealth of such a high magnitude? I speak of simplified mechanism of gradual "evolution" to an advanced status(there could be endogenously induced multiple equilbra/non-convergence etc) . Did the people of the US match the wealth levels of the British, immediately?
@hesteaeble Please explain how the relatively recent dramatic reduction in global poverty which was heavily concentrated in those emerging countries that most radically embraced economic liberalization is a negative thing...
@axe863 In which countries? In Argentina the situation went always straight in the opposite direction. More liberalization meant more poverty and less growth. With negative investment also, in the "Chicago School" period of 1976-1983. Taking billions of debt at impossibly high rates.
@lunacomputacion Let me guess a non-advanced economy (weakly diversified, fragile banking/financial structure, low credibility) adopted a flexible exchange rate system and in a financial crisis there was a sudden capital outflow that crippled the recovery and monetary authorities didn't supply sufficient liquidity to arrest fire sales and/or didn't arrest deflationary expectations. Was the debt denominated in foreign currency? Youre arguing at best against neo-classical economics.
@axe863 Your description is good, but you forgot to note that, previously to the crisis, the economic authority (formerly personnel of foreign banks or local world trade companies) offered plenty of opportunities for investment in state-guaranteed deposits at high rates (in local currency) and also guaranteed a fixed value for exchange. Results were so obvious that could not be unintentional. The burble WAS to explode, the bet was... when? Very similar to the 1890 "neoclassical" crisis
@lunacomputacion I just listed common causes of emerging markets crisises. (Let me guess) I would have to research it more in-depth to derive a sufficient approximation of the causes. Mexico for example tried to maintain a fixed exchange regime but its failure to do so triggered a loss of confidence and had real negative effects. A rebuttal of neo-classical thought is not a rebuttal of capitalism.
@axe863 i know it's too long a study for you and for yt, but sure would be interested in analysis of the 2001 Argentina crisis (compared to those of 1989, 1981, 1975, 1969 and more). At first glance i'd describe the sequence this way 1- hard currency outflow crisis. 2- radical changes in polit. a/or econom. adm. 3- new authorities come with fresh money from high-rate, long-term loans. 4- new regulations ensure fixed or planned exchange, as local interest rates grow w local inflation (cont)
@axe863 5- a new financial stampede, provoked by or accompanying a loss of external credit, leaves the country without cash and facing a huge and growing debt to pay. The social damages can't be mitigated because the monetary policy is oriented to that payment of external debt. The political-economical-"shakespearian cycle of destruction" restarts at this point... Well, that's what we know as capitalism. May be or may be not an accurate "tag", but that's what happened.
@axe863 needless to say, we're a bit pss... tired of that cycle (make it "kafkian"). Some solution or alleviation is attained by raising taxes to commodities exports (if their price is high), raise of public employment and assistance, and a more active control by citizens, taxpayers, people, regional population of homo-sapiens animal species or what suits best the taste. In other words, keynesianism, if not socialism...
Yes, I agree. A truly 'communist' country has never existed and may still be hundreds if not thousands of years away....but 'socialist' countries have existed...so let's change the word to 'socialism'. i have heard for the last 20 years that 'socialism is dead'...usually from ppl on the right./ if i continually told you that say 'napoleon is dead'..would u not think that quite strange? it's obvious right? so if 'socialism is dead' ..why the fear... afraid u might like it?????????
@americanmaoist A truly communist country can never exist in a country where agents are risk averse to systematic fluctuations( this isn't taking into account imperfect diversification & incompleteness) & competition driven dynamics which continually finds novel niches via R&D (quasi-evolutionary processes). These two conditions nullify the assumption of a zero rate of profit due to capitalist competition. Without a zero profit, a power structure would be required to suppress capitalists
@americanmaoist The following is extremely hilarious. Marx predicted the eventual demise of capitalism via the inherent dynamics of capitalistic competition but Soviet Russia had one of the lowest marginal productivity of capital in the world... and it was declining under the Soviet system !!! Soviet Russia,also, had one of the lowest growth rates(adjusted for human capital and investments) in the world.
@americanmaoist In a capitalist system, a transitional economy with a stable political system, a strong set of pro-capitalist laws, a stable monetary/fiscal system and sufficient local financial inter-mediation would obtain huge capital inflows due to its relatively higher marginal productivity of capital adjusted by a mild-moderate level of country specific risk. The speed of its emergence as a advanced economy is mathematically complex but there is no trend of declining MPC (lol)
no no not at all comrade...it's a great thing for 'most' ppl. but if you have knowledge of even the most basic marxist theories its really boring..and time consuming lol. dont get me wrong tough officially i loved it lol///and i di meet a lot of good ppl there
@americanmaoist Strong arguments/counterarguments coupled with no insulting language would get you much further than not answering arguments and playing nice with someone (a capitalist) who you think is part of a group that killed billions of people and enslaves the current population. Civility is required for proper discourse but playing nice will not win anyone over. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.
@americanmaoist I have yet to receive answers to many of my questions but ,for the sake of a debate, i will answer more of the questions that you pose. I would hope that you would actually answer one of mine or if you dont have an answer yet then just say pass. The admission that you don't know answer isn't punishable by deportation to a gulag. Zing
@americanmaoist A person with the screenname "americanmaoist" is asking me if i think communism is dead lol. Whats the min required number of sufficiently strong adherents for an ideology to be undead lol?
@axe863 lol...noooo noo,, i'm going somewhere with this...do u, a HUGE fan of capitalism if there ever was one think that in this 'modern' world communism is dead?...hint: i know the answer...
@americanmaoist This doesnt make any sense... communism was never "alive" in the real world....at least not in the form that Marx envisioned. There has never been a country that has been communist.
@americanmaoist No one can know the answer to anything with absolute certainty of this I am sure ;). Do you mean the Marxian construct's current applicability as a stable system of efficient organization? No with very high probability.
here's the thing bro...its all about love. i know it sounds gay but its true. where's the love?,,right now it only exists in the small lights left in the world, cuba and the dprk---communism= LOVE...imagine????????
@americanmaoist How can I feel love. Im a capitalist and my kind killed 1.5 billion people via hurricanes, unhealthly habits, religious based wars etc. lol. From space, the dprk has no lights...on snap. Fyi, I donate my time and money to non-political charities. How much do you donate to non-political charities?
@axe863 ,,yes, you can't see the dprk from space. why? because they care about the environment.// communism=charity, there is no greater charity that a man can give john 3:16
@axe863 marx was right. i am very spiritual but not at all religious...iwant to destroy religion in the name of our savior, the original communist, Jesus Christ. death to religion! Praise GOD
@americanmaoist Just google the worlds political compass and itll be the first one. Itll tell you where you are in the spectrum. Ignore the analysis bullshit. Its free and Ive been using it for a while as you can see on my channel. Im 6.5 right, -2.41 libertarian
@axe863 i think the 'political compass' was invented by the owners of the means of production to convince maoists that really they aren't so maoist afterall lol...i demand a recount!
@axe863 hmmm i think i need to re take that lol...my comrades would not be impressed....lol they might even make me re take the weekly education classes,,, i hated those. every sunday afternoon for six months..was like being in school..and if the comrades didnt feel like u interacted enough in the topic you'd get a call on monday morning(from a senior comrade that wasn't even present in the class) encouraging ur increased involement in next week's discussion...
not directed at you axe863,,just tosome of your potential viewers: congratulations tea party. What a positive effect you are having...idiots... sew hate... reap hate... always has been...always will be
@americanmaoist Oh you mean that crazy Jared guy who favorited the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf and a video of someone(looks like him) burning the US flag. This all sounds like something a Tea Party member would do . /sarcasm
@axe863 lol i know... i said 'how can 'you''...i should have said 'how can he'...trust me i know you dont favor the commnist manifesto lol....mein kampf...who knows....just kidding.... but u r a quasi-evolutionary evil bastard that wants to enslave people.../// i think i'm getting brainwashed by ur video..because i hear it everytime i come here to respond lol
@americanmaoist "quasi-evolutionary evil bastard that wants to enslave people" Please explain why I adjusted evolutionary with the term quasi. You have to prove that the labor theory of value is correct to make such a claim. You still haven't explained how Marx's construct of capitalistic crisis is true even though its failed in every case. Btw, watch out for Hurricane AXE863... its a killer capitalistic storm. You can turn off the volume
This is very frustrating. from this point forth i will not offer rebuttals to points made from extreme ignornace of socialism/communism. If you are a capitalist, pick up a copy of the communist manifesto and carefully review it. It is a general rule that one cant succeed in debunking a topic without adequately understanding it first.
@americanmaoist Have you actually read it? Please explain why all those countries that were aspiring to communism were not those mature industrialized countries which would have gone through the ever increasingly destabilizing mechanism of capitalistic competition that Marx theorized. They were the exact opposite. LOL
@axe863 yes, they were the exact oppisite. thats quite alright...marx wasn't 100% who is. we know through father Mao that revolution will be different in each country
@americanmaoist Capitalistic crisis will never materialize. Capitalism can only be destroyed by violent force. There must be violent suppression of individual rights for the so called "greater good." The greater good must be a set goal, a goal that a system doesn't evolve to from an emergent process but a draconian top down
@axe863 lmao...and how many ppl have been murdered by capitalism...billions, u and me eventually too. all murdered by corporate greed. welcome to 1984 brother...
@americanmaoist HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I have seen the list of the supposed billions murdered by capitalism. It is by far the dumbest thing I have ever seen on the internet.. this is including flat earthers, hollow earthers and overunity believers. Some of the most jaw dropping stupid parts on the list were Hurricane Katrina, tobacco producers and negative events before capitalism was even formed.
@americanmaoist The only thing on the list which actually warrants a response are deaths during periods of normalcy. The question that must be asked is... did the mechanism of capitalism allow an increase in the carrying capacity of the world. Without the quasi-evolutionary mechanisms of capitalistic competition/interconnections, would the worlds carrying capacity have increased by 2.5-3 billion in the past few decades. This is the honest question .
@americanmaoist Oh yeah and the list states the Holocaust,WWI, WW2 and all religion based wars excluding the Crusades were caused by capitalism. Are natural disasters and naturally induce famine caused by capitalism too.... oh wait they are...the list states that Hurricane Katrina & a whole list of natural famines were caused by capitalism. The list includes feudal Russia.!!! FEUDAL!!!!! Russia HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@axe863 will we die? and we live under capitalism. therefore, it goes without saying that we will be murdered by it no matter how we die.///for instance, i smoke cigarettes and drink a lot of alcohol. obviously, i do this to dull the pain of living under the heel of the fuedal landlords....capitalism murders me a little more everyday
@americanmaoist I have never smoked and I barely drink. This is your personal preference...have some personal responsibility. If they banned both items and you resorted to using i don't know glue, would it be their fault for producing glue?
@axe863 in theory i agree with u...but sad fact is all drugs are produced and were invented by capitalists to keep the workers in their chains....... /// with the exception of vodka...its 'worker approved'
@americanmaoist "marx wasn't 100% who is" Marx was 100% wrong. His idea of capitalistic crisis was completely incorrect. Lets say I come up with a mechanism that produces a result that X will occur. 100% of the time in several weakly interconnected diverse areas, the exact opposite occurs. That is a powerful refutation of a construct on empirical grounds.
@americanmaoist Really please explain two things .First, explain why communism never emerged out of a modern industrialized country via an ever declining rate of profit due to excess capitalistic competition as Marx theorized. Second, how you can make any prediction to the future state of a system that is based on highly nonlinear adaptive dynamics. Marx's construct is in total contradiction to the real world 100% error rate. You hold to it so dogmatically that it is akin to an opium addiction
This is very frustrating. From this point forth, I will not offer rebuttals to points made from extreme ignorance of economics. If you're a communist, pick up an economics book and carefully review it. It is a general rule that one cant succeed in debunking a topic without adequately understanding it first.
I, as a christian, think that the ownership si not importante but rules. Good society I think should be flexible in ordering in what areas what kind of ownership should be applied or both. E.g. i don't see a reason for private ownership of natural resources, or simple huge productions as rafineries as it's better when profit of it goes to all people. So ... simply all private or all state owned ... both is not right and it should be something between so I would be called communist now so ... :-)
@zabijakblbu Please prove the optimality conditions for this. I love how everyone is pulling this stuff out of their backsides. Science isn't opinion. It isn't emotionally based. "simple huge productions as rafineries as it's better when profit of it goes to all people." That's genius. Where do you think the drive for innovation which reduces the cost/increases the quality comes from... magical unicorns?
@axe863 What's the point of reducing the cost of production? Yes ... the state rafinery could be propably less effective as for cost of production but what is better ... less employees, high profit for someone who sits home or more employees with higher wages? In Czechoslovakia there were many state profitable companies ... after the privatisation number of employees was reduced with wages of these who staied, higher prices for customer and profit didn't go to state but to foreign country with .
@zabijakblbu Whats the point of increase risk adjusted efficiency..what do you think the point of it is? "high profit for someone who sits home" who is this mythical person? You argue that productive efficiency is not the main goal. If this is the case, why not employ people to cut lawns with scissors? "higher prices for customer" You seriously think there weren't indirect costs. I dont know the details but the general tendency dictates that they were in the pockets of the public's funds.
@axe863 I'm used to be called communist despite a fact I'm a christian ( I don't believe in communist idea, even not pure socialistic idea)and I think that private enterprise is important part of a society, ... only because I say that everything shouldn't be private ... that it's not good. But for fanatic capitalists = EVERYTHING private, when you say that the private it's not good in all areas it's sufficient to call you communist or evil leftist e.t.c. so i was waiting i can hear it here.
thats right. west germany gave ppl from the east welfare. gave them houses etc. lazy ppl in the east who didnt want to contribute to the common good would simply 'escape' to the west...where they would be given money and houses...great financial planning...
In the USSR before the revolution there were scores of people who couldn't even afford shoes... 80% couldn't read or write... by 1940 everyone had shoes and everyone could read and write...compared to where they had been under the czar it was nirvana
@americanmaoist How many people were killed by excess industrialization? Why did such extreme forced capital allocations led to such low returns (why was marginal product of capital one of the lowest in the world). Compare the SU results to that of Hong Kong.
@axe863 comrade, the SU was an extremely poor backwards nation before the revolution...of course in a mere 70 years they were not going to catch up with imperialist america...hong kong bad example...why? because the 'west' led by the usa poored money into hk to make it 'look good' as opposed to maoist china as was done in much the same way in west berlin. do u know that these smart capitalists in west berlin actually paid ppl who 'escaped from the east? ppl(manpower they didnt need)..
@americanmaoist Do you even understand how modern economies form? You seriously think the reason investors "poured money into hk to make it 'look good'" The people who escaped from the east didnt do so because they were below average rather it was because they were above average.. why do you think the people were caged in? Lets say all people get paid X wage at firm Z. It is the only firm w/o performance based pay. Which will leave which will stay? Simple Question
@axe863 well the thing is.......the citizens of the DDR(GDR)(Eeast Germany) were NOT ALL PAID THE SAME WAGES..thats one of the biggest critiques i see about socialist countries and it's simply NOT TRUE...yes, one can hope that after hundreds, thousands, millions?, of years humanity can evolve to a communist sate...wages in the DDR were more stratified... never 'equal' same is true for soviet union, north korea, cuba, hungary, romania, yugoslavia, mongolia,,,,,etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,, NEVER HAPPen
@americanmaoist Did you miss the point of my last question? The degree of aggregation was merely to simply. You can say all people in D characteristic labor get paid X wage at firm Z. It is the only firm w/o performance based pay. Which will leave which will stay?
@axe863 um,,,hi, NO I don't....but i dont think that mankind has evolved to the point that we can employ 'communism'...but we can at once employ 'socialism'...... a brain surgeon should make more than a delivery man......say 5 times as much....not 100 times as much...
@americanmaoist How can you, an external party w/o even expertise in the field, quantify the value derived by the patient even within sufficiently large bounds? Evolved to the point?.... Evolution has no predetermined goal!!!!
@axe863 hello, never said evolution had a predetermined goal,,just that ones comes before another...we must 'qualify the value',,that way the proletariat doesn't starve comrade
@americanmaoist You're assuming the system will evolve to a certain point by a top down process and you're thinking linearly. Were talking about highly nonlinear adaptive systems. You're wrong on so many levels on economics and evolution. You give
If one country's work force gets educated they no longer accept to be treated as slaves -> the corporations leave that country -> economy goes to hell - > population living standard drops -> education drops -> next generations will work for almost nothing ( slavery )-> corporations comeback -> people get educated again due to rise in living standard and so on...
It's a vicious cycle, there is no "creation of wealth" just a distribution. A very unfair distribution as 99% of the world can see.
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n In other words, we all live in caves and no one else got the memo. Gotcha. In actual fact, as most of the world CAN see, is that capitalism has been directly and entirely responsible for 300 years of improving living standards, compensation and working conditions, particularly for workers and the poor, creating vast amounts of wealth such that the US now has the wealthiest "poor" in the world.
Anyone pushing the "wage slavery" canard isn't going to be taken seriously anyway.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
Did you make these three animated videos (this one, arguing with marxist, communism rules) or the former operator of this channel?
fountainherz 1 month ago
@fountainherz Former with some of my input.
axe863 1 month ago
Happy to prove this capitalist looser geek wrong again. look at the USSR, 70% of it economy was destroyed from WWII, 28 MILLION Soviets died from the nazi-rats, and they quickly rebuilt everything through Socialism and were the first nation to space and a major threat to USA imperialism, even though when the USSR was founded to begin with it was already over 100 years behind the west.
MaoistLeninistMarx 2 months ago
@MaoistLeninistMarx Happy to prove this communist loser (no one has been less tightened) wrong again. Look at the USSR, from the time of its inception until its inevitable collapse the Soviet economy stagnated. That they rebuilt their military and put a man in obit was done by bankrupting the domestic economy - which is why it collapsed. The economic "success" of the Soviet Union has been so completely debunked, I'm amazed anyone is still attempting tyo purvey such nonsense.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
Capitalism actually does not create innovation you looser nerd with no balls (apparent do to the spandex skin-tight high shorts) . Even in the US the important innovations came from the Federal Government or NON-PROFITS (without profit motive), the polio vaccine (the USA's only medical innovation worth talking about) came from a NON-PROFIT organization, NASA was a government organization (not for profit), Computer-chips were created through government funds, so even in US capitalism is wrong
MaoistLeninistMarx 2 months ago
@MaoistLeninistMarx Wow. Since, in actual fact, capitalism has been proven to spur innovation (non-profits still work within a capitalist framework of resource allocation) and the overwhelming majority of innovation, including medical innovation, is privately funded (two-thirds in OECD countries and even more in the US) you suffer from a common problem of Maoists, Leninists and Marxists in that you never even come remotely close to getting your facts straight.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
Great video, these Socialist are nuts, they want to apply their theory to our money. Capitalism is just freedom, Socialism is for those who are so arrogant that they think they have the right to tell you how to spend your money.
AJatethewaffles 2 months ago
bullshit, why does capitalism need war after war after war!!!
MaoistLeninistMarx 5 months ago
@MaoistLeninistMarx Why does capitalism even need war? You have to actually build a model adjusted for factors and statistically derive the validity of this statement or provide a peer reviewed research paper on this very topic. This is equivalent to saying X organization is racist because Y% of members are racist whilst the population "pool" is Z% racist. Is there a statistically significant difference is the real question !!!
axe863 5 months ago
@MaoistLeninistMarx
War is unprofitable, even in a statist society where the cost is bourne on all taxpayers instead of coming directly out-of-pocket by supporters.
Come on dude, if you're against "capitalism" (whatever it's supposed to mean since it's got a thousand different definitions at this point) that's fine but don't strawman. lol.
fountainherz 2 months ago
@fountainherz Actually war is VERY profitable.
As fiat currency value drops the need and cost of real assets(natural resources) increases.
What is Iraq?
What is Lybia?
Resources. US 's "investment cost" in this matter is almost nothing.Their projected income for "rebuilding" and "exploitation of resources" will overshadow any war costs.They also nail down Iran and China's trading partners.
Tripe win?
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n
1) According to the DoD, the defense budget adds roughly 7 billion to the debt (with speculation that it may be more). Assuming the resources extracted from foreign nations rests on a plethora of assertions like perfect information, static conditions, and is speculative at best. In the long run even those who benefit from war in short-term process (those in control of the money supply and closest to circulation) feel the effects as the currency is undervalued by rising prices.
fountainherz 1 month ago
@fountainherz The thing you're missing out is that :
A) the general population was never intended as the beneficiary party of such income /resources. The corporations who get the contracts were.
B) Yes indeed the system is short-sighted and in the long run it will cause stagnation, decrease in population income etc
Again you're missing out the point that you were not the intended target of those benefits - you're just tools. And that the current system is so corrupt from the -
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n That A is a problem of the state is certainly true. That B is a problem that exists in reality is patenetly false. No evidence of any kind exists - because its nonsense - that investors place no value in long term returns (the evidence is overwhelming that they DO place value on that). investors shorting companies represent determinations of the value of the company - it is that valuation, not the investor that spells the company's inevitable doom.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n
On A and B we actually agree then; I don't believe it's for "our" benefits (I'm not defending war btw, I'm anti-war, by closest to circulation I meant the politicians, corporate interests, etc.).
fountainherz 4 weeks ago
@fountainherz In case you did not know people when pushed too far protest in the streets at first - they don't offer solutions as you suggest. That's why there is a government.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@fountainherz - main capitalist idea and deregulated to such a degree that it value short term growth over long term prosperity.
The sample a few years back with investors betting against their own firms until they drove them into bankruptcy was a clear image of that view that has overtaken our economic system. In its current form , capitalist no longer suits humanity - defending it and more so it PRACTICES is sheer suicide, as more americans are finding out.
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n The Marxian notion that capitalism compresses wages or leads to suicidal results has been thoroughly and completely destroyed by the empirical evidence. It is no accident that every attempt at implementing syndicalism/communism/collectivism/socialism has been an abysmal failure, the vocal minority with views like the OWS crowd, notwithstanding. It's no accident that the backlash against governmnet spending has had a real political impact and OWS is a joke.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom OWS is a joke?
HAH!
Ok, this discussion is over, i cannot believe i even tried to reason with such a lowly person whose view has been SO skewed that fails to see human needs below greed.
Are you a republican supporter too?
"A one man crusade" of what? Or lies?
You blatantly have the NERVE to come here and defend a filth drenched system that not only promotes MASS IMPOVERISHMENT of everyone.
No! Sorry that is NOT a "good system" and the fact that -
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n I sincerely apologize. Objectively, I did make a mistake. Characterizing OWS as a joke overestimates their impact by so many orders of magnitude, I am properly chagrined for having made such a mistake. The fact is that I DO see human needs "beyond greed" and history is irrefutable in its conclusion that capitalism best meets the needs of others while socialism promotes MASS IMPOVERISHMENT. One cannot rationally read history any other way.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom said system is actively promoting wars to fuel its existence is disgusting.
The big players in the US do benefit from wars - you keep drawing a parallel to "long term effects" and " population effects" but fail to understand that they do NOT think like that - even though it is dumb.
They want SHORT-TERM profits, they don't care about long term anything. And they got these clowns like you who are on a "one man crusade" defending them for free.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n Socialism includes state action which is "actively promoting wars" and is disgusting. If your problem is with state action (socialism) then we are completely in accord. If you cannot garsp the distinction ... I am not responsible for your ignorance.
And your assertion that "they" want short-term profits and don't care about long-term anything is completely contrary to reality (else businesses would all have bankryupted long ago). The whole premise is obviously absurd on its face.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom That's basically it.
OWS is a joke?
Being unemployed is a joke then? Probably is to you - what kind of "school of economics" you have there anyway?
Being not able to even LIVE decently due to insane loans is a joke too?
And let's not bring up how "fair" capitalism is ,since we're at the "let's bash socialism, derp" stage. Last i checked failing bussinesses go BANKRUPT, they don't get bailed out by the PEOPLE.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n Being unemployed is not a joke. Had the governmnet not meddled in the economy - again - creating the crisis in much the same way it caused the Great Depression, unemployment in the US would follow historical norms and run roughly half that of more socialist Europe. And, under capitalism, businesses fail and do not get bailed out. I's under socialism that businesses are taken over to protect union members.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom "vocal minority" - i've been to the US a few months ago and it is WORSE than OWS describes it. You're either in Tra-lala land or are lying through your teeth.
" the cost of resources does not rise when the currency value falls " - uhm...money has no real value really. It is just damn paper printed by a machine, it has NO value, it is not tangible unless WE give it value.
Natural resources are valuable regardless of the economic status - you can do tasks -
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n I am not responsible for your anecdoatl evidence that is contrary to reality either. Nonetheless you inadvertently repeat the point that I was making - natural resources have value/cost regardless of the currency manipulation undertaken by governmnet in order to steal the wealth of savers (again nothing to do with capitalism).
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom -with them.
Food you can eat. Fuel you can use for transport and so on.
All these have a given value - regardless. Why do investor and speculators are shifting towards gold and silver?
That resources will not drop in value as it is tangible and unrelated to market fluctuation.
As for capitalism being responsible for 300 years of progress - science would be the one responsible. And capitalism is more of a handbrake - continuously putting its:
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n Investors are moving to gold and silver because they are durable commodities that retain value despite currency manipulation.
As for capitalism being responsible for 300 years of progress - it is because the scientific innovation took place because of capitalism. Modern technology cannot come into being without both an extended division of labor AND a monetary system. Socialism and attempts to interfere with it have demonstrably been the only handbrake.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom " But is it cost efficient?" question to otherwise incredible things that would improve our lives.
Why isn't rail road extensively used in the US and it is overshadowed by air and car transport?
Because there is no PROFIT in mass transit or electric transport.
However there IS in polluting diesel, gasoline and other such "profitable" crap.
Why is there so little "green power" in the world?
Because it is ..that's right.. EXPENSIVE. Why it is expensive?
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n Rail is less cost effcient for most things (due primarily to time, labor and intermediate shipping. There is so little "green power" in the world because it is not even remotely cost effective. It has become moreso, but so have fossil fuels. Mas sproduction has nothing to do with it. If it were possible to close the HUGE gap in cost effectiveness, the market would adopt those alternatives in a heartbeat. They just aren't close to practical.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom Because it is not mass produced. And it is not mass produced because it is ALREADY profitable to just burn dirty stuff.
Capitalism hasn't brought progress - SCIENCE has. Capitalism came afterwards and put a PRICE on everything claiming ownership.
So don't come here playing the devil's advocate. And take your damn crusade elsewhere. We ain't buying it.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n To the contrary, capitalism preceded and enabled modern machines and medicines that couls otherwise not have come into being. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I am simply reciting actual history. If you wish to stick your fingers in your ears and hum so that you don;t have to deal with reality, that's entirely your choice. I will continue to present the historical and economic facts in the face of OWS-style ignorance.
But, hey, thanks for playing!!!
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom Feel free to reply me, i don't care. I have nothing more to say to you and the fact you consider OWS a joke - aka the people's issues are "a joke" to you proves my point that capitalism supporters are heartless.
And that needs to change. I'm not promoting communism or socialism, but you people are not better than they were back in the 20th century.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n Finally, understand. I flatly do NOT think "the people's issues" are a joke. I think the people's issues are paramount. What is a joke is the notion that OWS is in any way representing "the people's issues". They are instead demonstrating profound ignorance and are so unbelievably ineffectual a a societal force that there is no chance that they will ever be taken seriously. That's simply justified.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n
2) Further, as war is a "government expenditure" it is funded by taxation or divertion of resources from the private sector into the public sector, causes economic stagnation (i.e. no "real" growth") as it decreases the incomes of citizens, increases prices, stifles business through allocation (i.e. warfare goods instead of consumer goods(-ever hear the analogy of putting everyone to work by digging ditches?)), and creates uncertainty (blowback, tax-raising).
fountainherz 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n Actually, war is extremely UNprofitable. That it is in the state's interest to project its power and enrich certain individuals has nothing to do with with either overall rofitability or capitalism. And the cost of resources does not rise when the currency value falls (you are confusing cost and price). Still, the devaluation of the currency is a separate issue from that of warfare.
FletchforFreedom 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NDNSupport Watch my new vid on my page about "capitalism"
WONDOCTORJ 6 months ago
@NDNSupport You are a moron. We do not have capitalism, and if we did, we would not have these problems.
We have coopertism.
Coopertism is where the government makes regulations and laws to help benefit a few select cooperations.
Please stop getting your info from mainstream media douche.
WONDOCTORJ 6 months ago
Socialism is all about fighting capitalism, while Capitalism stands for something positive. You can't have socialism without dissing Capitalism, yet Capitalism stands alone as something positive. It's naive to think all CEOs are Mother Teresas, yet socialism won't solve the problem of evil people; capitalism can be made better by training great leaders, leaders who serve their people and yes this video is right capitalism is best for developing countries.
Frelsun1234 6 months ago
@shadowgeyser I think the people o fallow the politics are retarder to understand what is nature. Go study. Study my country and see what is suffering. I hate politic. You say that, you are a follower of politics. and you're blind for politic. But o i am to judge. You have earned interest on it, not the way to go back. im out.
Play671 8 months ago
Capitalism, to me, is the same shit that other policies. Do not move a single finger in the country, and only interested in money and not the health of people for profit. And I do not see love in those policies. In fact, neither makes me want to participate in any. They talk talk talk and they don't make anything. money is the problem. we are in crisis and only brute force us out of crisis, then repeats the sequence. The oney its nothing. Its a manipulator.
Play671 8 months ago
@Play671 TVP cares more about eliminating free exchange and equalizing wealth than destroying money per say. It is a historic fact that the introduction of money helped reduce the illiquid drags on the real economy and thus increased real economic growth. TVP is at odds with reality on multiple levels.
axe863 8 months ago
@axe863 The reality is dirty.
And we are slaves from this culture. You don't belive in evoltuion you are done. why do not you move out of the pit.
Play671 8 months ago
@Play671 Evolution is a fact. One doesn't have to "believe" in science and reality. Evolutionary theory is well tested. Evolutionary processes have been observed.
axe863 8 months ago
@axe863 You are one of those guys o think o are smart. I am not smart if you whant to know, but i have experience. No politic made good think today. I am not comunist/socialist or any another other politic. I am zero. Second, the politic talk talk talk and they don't do nothing.
Play671 8 months ago
@Play671My statements are independent of my level of expertise or general cognitive abilities. If one supports centrally planned economies, one is in the hard leftist authoritarian corner
axe863 8 months ago
@axe863 There are many cases (at least in Argentine economic history) in which central planification was used to authoritarily "dictate" market economy and open foreign commerce. However I like to point out 2 things: thumbs up for your dedicated and respectful style. Though I tend to agree more with Play671.
lunacomputacion 7 months ago
@Play671 But the problem is what they DO; war, misery and another "economic crisis phenomena" for the books, (pain, hunger, anxiety for living beings), comes from what they DO with economy. What the politicians say MASK what they DO, so there's a use in knowing their techniques beforehand. My (bare) knowledge and interest in politics and economy comes from rage. That "unscientific" rage of Macchiavelo or Galileo: "THEY SAY THAT, BUT I SEE THIS"!!! - without their talent o.c.
lunacomputacion 7 months ago
@Play671 But it's not the money, but its lack or concentration, which makes us slaves. Money (in everyone's hands) means access and diversity, and a flow of posibilities. You see it in the street and you can check it in books, specially in the transit from middle ages to contemporary. A society without money, without trade, undernourished, believing in witches and devils, using a lexicon of avg 500 words, enslaved by sadistic aristocrats... It may be Fox's capitalist(?) dreamland but...
lunacomputacion 7 months ago
@lunacomputacion To bad, looks like you're changing religion with politics. If we created a base in an economy based on money, so we can create other types savings instead of cash. If you say that the resource-based economy will not work, and that will lead to violence, you'll also have the notion of living without violence? what I see on the streets is poor and not cash flow. People say money, because they don't think in other forms.
Play671 7 months ago
@Play671 I don't want religion, I was talking of feudal economy/culture and some "likenesses" with the present. I didn't say there's cash flow now; meant that "when" there's cash, it means access, etc. I never talked against resource-based economies; I said that access to free time and cultural goods for everyone would be easier giving more money to ppl (with the inflationary tradeoff) than inventing a whole new trade system. Perhaps I'm not clear, because English is not my native language.
lunacomputacion 7 months ago
Comment removed
kmarinas86 6 months ago
"It is a historic fact that the introduction of money helped reduce the illiquid drags on the real economy and thus increased real economic growth."
True only if the introduction of money coincides at a rate that is proximal to the growth from innovations that develop the real economy of physical goods and tangible services. If not, then such introduction of money leads to production of intangible services of entertainers, bureaucracy, and rent-seekers.
kmarinas86 6 months ago
@kmarinas86 .....o_O lol proof?
axe863 6 months ago
@axe863
Let's see you introduce money into an economy to the effect a 5% increase of the total money supply annually for an economy that grows 3% a year in real terms. The reality is if this trend continues, you actually cause many people to incur debts as there is more money being transferred than is justified by production. Prices go up, and people don't act immediately, and so they fall out balance, losing their jobs and income to recession, which reduces real economic growth.
kmarinas86 6 months ago 2
Of course it would be absurd to take capitalism (or any economic theory) as a belief beyond time, society and politics. Which capitalism? Mill's? Queen Victoria's? Keynes's? Reagan's? The strange and corrupted variants that so many countries went through? Will you say, like the "comrades", "oh, but that was not real capitalism" or that I'm an evil bastard from a weak economic system?
lunacomputacion 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser State Capitalism ...right :P. It wasnt anarcho-communism..that kind of system lives in magical fairy land. It was a far left authoritarian (Marxist-Leninist) system. They were actually surprised when people with central authority with zero checks and balances ... abused their power.
axe863 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser I had a communist tell me that the 20 million deaths under Stalin was a fabrication. He said only a few thousand died. LOL
axe863 8 months ago
capitalism is evil look at russia ever since 1991 kid on the streets baging for mouny sharing water with dogs and cats most of them are lucky to get food once a week and when i say food i mean like a peace of bread
smilly456 9 months ago
@smilly456 I love how capitalism increases the carrying capacity of the world, reduces extreme global poverty by 40% in 2 decades and doesn't artificially induce mass starvation/mass cannibalism in Russia/Ukraine ..and yet its evil. How many millions died under the Marxist-Leninist framework for purely artificial reasons?
axe863 8 months ago
@smilly456 Russia defaulted on their debt. It is riddled with corruption,has a weak banking/ financial structure and is weakly interconnected.....what do you expect. Also, defaulting on their debt increased their borrowing costs etc Finance 101. Capitalism doesn't promise you magical unicorns that cry skittles. Capitalism isnt based on theoretical masturbation, its reality.
axe863 8 months ago
"and poorer countries will gain from increased demand of workers" Yes because all the workers in taiwan and thailand are soooooo rich.
hesteaeble 11 months ago
@hesteaeble This comment is nonsensical if you watched my video. Where do I speak of an immediate spike in individual wealth of such a high magnitude? I speak of simplified mechanism of gradual "evolution" to an advanced status(there could be endogenously induced multiple equilbra/non-convergence etc) . Did the people of the US match the wealth levels of the British, immediately?
axe863 11 months ago
@axe863 All Im saying is that third world countries would be better off without the us.
hesteaeble 11 months ago
@hesteaeble Please explain how the relatively recent dramatic reduction in global poverty which was heavily concentrated in those emerging countries that most radically embraced economic liberalization is a negative thing...
axe863 11 months ago
@axe863 In which countries? In Argentina the situation went always straight in the opposite direction. More liberalization meant more poverty and less growth. With negative investment also, in the "Chicago School" period of 1976-1983. Taking billions of debt at impossibly high rates.
lunacomputacion 10 months ago
@lunacomputacion Let me guess a non-advanced economy (weakly diversified, fragile banking/financial structure, low credibility) adopted a flexible exchange rate system and in a financial crisis there was a sudden capital outflow that crippled the recovery and monetary authorities didn't supply sufficient liquidity to arrest fire sales and/or didn't arrest deflationary expectations. Was the debt denominated in foreign currency? Youre arguing at best against neo-classical economics.
axe863 8 months ago
@axe863 Your description is good, but you forgot to note that, previously to the crisis, the economic authority (formerly personnel of foreign banks or local world trade companies) offered plenty of opportunities for investment in state-guaranteed deposits at high rates (in local currency) and also guaranteed a fixed value for exchange. Results were so obvious that could not be unintentional. The burble WAS to explode, the bet was... when? Very similar to the 1890 "neoclassical" crisis
lunacomputacion 8 months ago
@lunacomputacion I just listed common causes of emerging markets crisises. (Let me guess) I would have to research it more in-depth to derive a sufficient approximation of the causes. Mexico for example tried to maintain a fixed exchange regime but its failure to do so triggered a loss of confidence and had real negative effects. A rebuttal of neo-classical thought is not a rebuttal of capitalism.
axe863 8 months ago
@axe863 i know it's too long a study for you and for yt, but sure would be interested in analysis of the 2001 Argentina crisis (compared to those of 1989, 1981, 1975, 1969 and more). At first glance i'd describe the sequence this way 1- hard currency outflow crisis. 2- radical changes in polit. a/or econom. adm. 3- new authorities come with fresh money from high-rate, long-term loans. 4- new regulations ensure fixed or planned exchange, as local interest rates grow w local inflation (cont)
lunacomputacion 8 months ago
@axe863 5- a new financial stampede, provoked by or accompanying a loss of external credit, leaves the country without cash and facing a huge and growing debt to pay. The social damages can't be mitigated because the monetary policy is oriented to that payment of external debt. The political-economical-"shakespearian cycle of destruction" restarts at this point... Well, that's what we know as capitalism. May be or may be not an accurate "tag", but that's what happened.
lunacomputacion 8 months ago
@axe863 needless to say, we're a bit pss... tired of that cycle (make it "kafkian"). Some solution or alleviation is attained by raising taxes to commodities exports (if their price is high), raise of public employment and assistance, and a more active control by citizens, taxpayers, people, regional population of homo-sapiens animal species or what suits best the taste. In other words, keynesianism, if not socialism...
lunacomputacion 8 months ago
Yes, I agree. A truly 'communist' country has never existed and may still be hundreds if not thousands of years away....but 'socialist' countries have existed...so let's change the word to 'socialism'. i have heard for the last 20 years that 'socialism is dead'...usually from ppl on the right./ if i continually told you that say 'napoleon is dead'..would u not think that quite strange? it's obvious right? so if 'socialism is dead' ..why the fear... afraid u might like it?????????
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist A truly communist country can never exist in a country where agents are risk averse to systematic fluctuations( this isn't taking into account imperfect diversification & incompleteness) & competition driven dynamics which continually finds novel niches via R&D (quasi-evolutionary processes). These two conditions nullify the assumption of a zero rate of profit due to capitalist competition. Without a zero profit, a power structure would be required to suppress capitalists
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist The following is extremely hilarious. Marx predicted the eventual demise of capitalism via the inherent dynamics of capitalistic competition but Soviet Russia had one of the lowest marginal productivity of capital in the world... and it was declining under the Soviet system !!! Soviet Russia,also, had one of the lowest growth rates(adjusted for human capital and investments) in the world.
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist In a capitalist system, a transitional economy with a stable political system, a strong set of pro-capitalist laws, a stable monetary/fiscal system and sufficient local financial inter-mediation would obtain huge capital inflows due to its relatively higher marginal productivity of capital adjusted by a mild-moderate level of country specific risk. The speed of its emergence as a advanced economy is mathematically complex but there is no trend of declining MPC (lol)
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist There are still many countries that are a mixture of a variant of capitalism and socialism, the latter leaching off the former.
axe863 1 year ago
Excellent video. I only wish Michael Moore would watch something like this and take it in.
mangoswiss 1 year ago
no no not at all comrade...it's a great thing for 'most' ppl. but if you have knowledge of even the most basic marxist theories its really boring..and time consuming lol. dont get me wrong tough officially i loved it lol///and i di meet a lot of good ppl there
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I think you would get in really big trouble for being so soft with me right now ... im an evil capitalist, your archenemy.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lol u might be right but i disagree.>>>>> you catch more flys with honey than with vinegar
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Strong arguments/counterarguments coupled with no insulting language would get you much further than not answering arguments and playing nice with someone (a capitalist) who you think is part of a group that killed billions of people and enslaves the current population. Civility is required for proper discourse but playing nice will not win anyone over. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 good points to be sure...
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I have yet to receive answers to many of my questions but ,for the sake of a debate, i will answer more of the questions that you pose. I would hope that you would actually answer one of mine or if you dont have an answer yet then just say pass. The admission that you don't know answer isn't punishable by deportation to a gulag. Zing
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lmao! how about this...do you think communism is dead?
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist A person with the screenname "americanmaoist" is asking me if i think communism is dead lol. Whats the min required number of sufficiently strong adherents for an ideology to be undead lol?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lol...noooo noo,, i'm going somewhere with this...do u, a HUGE fan of capitalism if there ever was one think that in this 'modern' world communism is dead?...hint: i know the answer...
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist This doesnt make any sense... communism was never "alive" in the real world....at least not in the form that Marx envisioned. There has never been a country that has been communist.
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist No one can know the answer to anything with absolute certainty of this I am sure ;). Do you mean the Marxian construct's current applicability as a stable system of efficient organization? No with very high probability.
axe863 1 year ago
here's the thing bro...its all about love. i know it sounds gay but its true. where's the love?,,right now it only exists in the small lights left in the world, cuba and the dprk---communism= LOVE...imagine????????
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist How can I feel love. Im a capitalist and my kind killed 1.5 billion people via hurricanes, unhealthly habits, religious based wars etc. lol. From space, the dprk has no lights...on snap. Fyi, I donate my time and money to non-political charities. How much do you donate to non-political charities?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 ,,yes, you can't see the dprk from space. why? because they care about the environment.// communism=charity, there is no greater charity that a man can give john 3:16
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Ok Im now 90% sure that youre joking. Btw, Marx said religion is the opium of the masses
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 marx was right. i am very spiritual but not at all religious...iwant to destroy religion in the name of our savior, the original communist, Jesus Christ. death to religion! Praise GOD
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist You should take the political compass to see where you rank. and post it on your channel
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lol...trust me i'm communist lol
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I think youre a far left authoritarian but I could be wrong
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 where do i take this 'political compass'?
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Just google the worlds political compass and itll be the first one. Itll tell you where you are in the spectrum. Ignore the analysis bullshit. Its free and Ive been using it for a while as you can see on my channel. Im 6.5 right, -2.41 libertarian
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist When youre done taking the test... just scroll down and your numbers are there.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 i'm Economic Left/Right: -9.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.38
is that close to what u were thinking?
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Not the libertarian part. I dont understand how youre a Maoist ...youre more anarcho-communist than Maoist.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 i think the 'political compass' was invented by the owners of the means of production to convince maoists that really they aren't so maoist afterall lol...i demand a recount!
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Not just that but they made you appear more right ...your actual economic rank is -10 + 1/(100^100000)
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 hmmm i think i need to re take that lol...my comrades would not be impressed....lol they might even make me re take the weekly education classes,,, i hated those. every sunday afternoon for six months..was like being in school..and if the comrades didnt feel like u interacted enough in the topic you'd get a call on monday morning(from a senior comrade that wasn't even present in the class) encouraging ur increased involement in next week's discussion...
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist that sounds very controlling
axe863 1 year ago
not directed at you axe863,,just tosome of your potential viewers: congratulations tea party. What a positive effect you are having...idiots... sew hate... reap hate... always has been...always will be
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Oh you mean that crazy Jared guy who favorited the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf and a video of someone(looks like him) burning the US flag. This all sounds like something a Tea Party member would do . /sarcasm
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lol
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Why lol? Go to his youtube channel
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 seriously? how can u favor the manifesto and mein kampf..sounds really confused lol
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I said JARED favorited those books . Hes batshit crazy
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lol i know... i said 'how can 'you''...i should have said 'how can he'...trust me i know you dont favor the commnist manifesto lol....mein kampf...who knows....just kidding.... but u r a quasi-evolutionary evil bastard that wants to enslave people.../// i think i'm getting brainwashed by ur video..because i hear it everytime i come here to respond lol
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist "quasi-evolutionary evil bastard that wants to enslave people" Please explain why I adjusted evolutionary with the term quasi. You have to prove that the labor theory of value is correct to make such a claim. You still haven't explained how Marx's construct of capitalistic crisis is true even though its failed in every case. Btw, watch out for Hurricane AXE863... its a killer capitalistic storm. You can turn off the volume
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I should put an ad on my page so I get money every time that you comment ... Im jking.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 how capitalist of you..i'm suprised you haven't yet lol...maybe you could find a way to enslave ppl in china in the process
americanmaoist 1 year ago
This is very frustrating. from this point forth i will not offer rebuttals to points made from extreme ignornace of socialism/communism. If you are a capitalist, pick up a copy of the communist manifesto and carefully review it. It is a general rule that one cant succeed in debunking a topic without adequately understanding it first.
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Have you actually read it? Please explain why all those countries that were aspiring to communism were not those mature industrialized countries which would have gone through the ever increasingly destabilizing mechanism of capitalistic competition that Marx theorized. They were the exact opposite. LOL
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 yes, they were the exact oppisite. thats quite alright...marx wasn't 100% who is. we know through father Mao that revolution will be different in each country
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Well Mao was really good at one thing, mass murder.. How many did he kill was it 50 60 or 70 million people roughly?
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Capitalistic crisis will never materialize. Capitalism can only be destroyed by violent force. There must be violent suppression of individual rights for the so called "greater good." The greater good must be a set goal, a goal that a system doesn't evolve to from an emergent process but a draconian top down
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I cant believe you can get behind someone who killed between 4-6 times the number of innocent people that Hitler murdered.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lmao...and how many ppl have been murdered by capitalism...billions, u and me eventually too. all murdered by corporate greed. welcome to 1984 brother...
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I have seen the list of the supposed billions murdered by capitalism. It is by far the dumbest thing I have ever seen on the internet.. this is including flat earthers, hollow earthers and overunity believers. Some of the most jaw dropping stupid parts on the list were Hurricane Katrina, tobacco producers and negative events before capitalism was even formed.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lol@ hurricane katrina...thats alittle extreme
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist The only thing on the list which actually warrants a response are deaths during periods of normalcy. The question that must be asked is... did the mechanism of capitalism allow an increase in the carrying capacity of the world. Without the quasi-evolutionary mechanisms of capitalistic competition/interconnections, would the worlds carrying capacity have increased by 2.5-3 billion in the past few decades. This is the honest question .
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Oh yeah and the list states the Holocaust,WWI, WW2 and all religion based wars excluding the Crusades were caused by capitalism. Are natural disasters and naturally induce famine caused by capitalism too.... oh wait they are...the list states that Hurricane Katrina & a whole list of natural famines were caused by capitalism. The list includes feudal Russia.!!! FEUDAL!!!!! Russia HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist You mean .. you and I. How exactly will we be murdered by capitalism?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 will we die? and we live under capitalism. therefore, it goes without saying that we will be murdered by it no matter how we die.///for instance, i smoke cigarettes and drink a lot of alcohol. obviously, i do this to dull the pain of living under the heel of the fuedal landlords....capitalism murders me a little more everyday
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I have never smoked and I barely drink. This is your personal preference...have some personal responsibility. If they banned both items and you resorted to using i don't know glue, would it be their fault for producing glue?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 in theory i agree with u...but sad fact is all drugs are produced and were invented by capitalists to keep the workers in their chains....... /// with the exception of vodka...its 'worker approved'
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Youre outsourcing all your production. You can live in total isolation from the system and produce all things at an extreme cost.
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist "marx wasn't 100% who is" Marx was 100% wrong. His idea of capitalistic crisis was completely incorrect. Lets say I come up with a mechanism that produces a result that X will occur. 100% of the time in several weakly interconnected diverse areas, the exact opposite occurs. That is a powerful refutation of a construct on empirical grounds.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 marx's ideas are 'inevitable' comrade...can't stop evolution...
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Really please explain two things .First, explain why communism never emerged out of a modern industrialized country via an ever declining rate of profit due to excess capitalistic competition as Marx theorized. Second, how you can make any prediction to the future state of a system that is based on highly nonlinear adaptive dynamics. Marx's construct is in total contradiction to the real world 100% error rate. You hold to it so dogmatically that it is akin to an opium addiction
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist To sum up: You don't understand economics, evolution or (implied) statistical analysis
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 yes, friend i do..the fact that i'm a marxist proves it my quasi-evolutionary comrade!
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@axe863 DPRK is a better place to live than usa...everyone knows this
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist I seriously wasted all this time with a satirist. You know its really not that funny.
axe863 1 year ago
This is very frustrating. From this point forth, I will not offer rebuttals to points made from extreme ignorance of economics. If you're a communist, pick up an economics book and carefully review it. It is a general rule that one cant succeed in debunking a topic without adequately understanding it first.
axe863 1 year ago
I, as a christian, think that the ownership si not importante but rules. Good society I think should be flexible in ordering in what areas what kind of ownership should be applied or both. E.g. i don't see a reason for private ownership of natural resources, or simple huge productions as rafineries as it's better when profit of it goes to all people. So ... simply all private or all state owned ... both is not right and it should be something between so I would be called communist now so ... :-)
zabijakblbu 1 year ago
@zabijakblbu Please prove the optimality conditions for this. I love how everyone is pulling this stuff out of their backsides. Science isn't opinion. It isn't emotionally based. "simple huge productions as rafineries as it's better when profit of it goes to all people." That's genius. Where do you think the drive for innovation which reduces the cost/increases the quality comes from... magical unicorns?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 What's the point of reducing the cost of production? Yes ... the state rafinery could be propably less effective as for cost of production but what is better ... less employees, high profit for someone who sits home or more employees with higher wages? In Czechoslovakia there were many state profitable companies ... after the privatisation number of employees was reduced with wages of these who staied, higher prices for customer and profit didn't go to state but to foreign country with .
zabijakblbu 1 year ago
@zabijakblbu Whats the point of increase risk adjusted efficiency..what do you think the point of it is? "high profit for someone who sits home" who is this mythical person? You argue that productive efficiency is not the main goal. If this is the case, why not employ people to cut lawns with scissors? "higher prices for customer" You seriously think there weren't indirect costs. I dont know the details but the general tendency dictates that they were in the pockets of the public's funds.
axe863 1 year ago
@zabijakblbu How are you a communist if you say that there should be private ownership?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 I'm used to be called communist despite a fact I'm a christian ( I don't believe in communist idea, even not pure socialistic idea)and I think that private enterprise is important part of a society, ... only because I say that everything shouldn't be private ... that it's not good. But for fanatic capitalists = EVERYTHING private, when you say that the private it's not good in all areas it's sufficient to call you communist or evil leftist e.t.c. so i was waiting i can hear it here.
zabijakblbu 1 year ago
Comment removed
zabijakblbu 1 year ago
thats right. west germany gave ppl from the east welfare. gave them houses etc. lazy ppl in the east who didnt want to contribute to the common good would simply 'escape' to the west...where they would be given money and houses...great financial planning...
americanmaoist 1 year ago
In the USSR before the revolution there were scores of people who couldn't even afford shoes... 80% couldn't read or write... by 1940 everyone had shoes and everyone could read and write...compared to where they had been under the czar it was nirvana
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist How many people were killed by excess industrialization? Why did such extreme forced capital allocations led to such low returns (why was marginal product of capital one of the lowest in the world). Compare the SU results to that of Hong Kong.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 comrade, the SU was an extremely poor backwards nation before the revolution...of course in a mere 70 years they were not going to catch up with imperialist america...hong kong bad example...why? because the 'west' led by the usa poored money into hk to make it 'look good' as opposed to maoist china as was done in much the same way in west berlin. do u know that these smart capitalists in west berlin actually paid ppl who 'escaped from the east? ppl(manpower they didnt need)..
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Do you even understand how modern economies form? You seriously think the reason investors "poured money into hk to make it 'look good'" The people who escaped from the east didnt do so because they were below average rather it was because they were above average.. why do you think the people were caged in? Lets say all people get paid X wage at firm Z. It is the only firm w/o performance based pay. Which will leave which will stay? Simple Question
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 well the thing is.......the citizens of the DDR(GDR)(Eeast Germany) were NOT ALL PAID THE SAME WAGES..thats one of the biggest critiques i see about socialist countries and it's simply NOT TRUE...yes, one can hope that after hundreds, thousands, millions?, of years humanity can evolve to a communist sate...wages in the DDR were more stratified... never 'equal' same is true for soviet union, north korea, cuba, hungary, romania, yugoslavia, mongolia,,,,,etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,, NEVER HAPPen
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Did you miss the point of my last question? The degree of aggregation was merely to simply. You can say all people in D characteristic labor get paid X wage at firm Z. It is the only firm w/o performance based pay. Which will leave which will stay?
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist simplify. Answer this question and please elaborate on why the extreme stagnation in East Germany was a good thing.
axe863 1 year ago
@americanmaoist Do you seriously think that a brain surgeon deserves the same level of pay per hour as a delivery man?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 um,,,hi, NO I don't....but i dont think that mankind has evolved to the point that we can employ 'communism'...but we can at once employ 'socialism'...... a brain surgeon should make more than a delivery man......say 5 times as much....not 100 times as much...
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist How can you, an external party w/o even expertise in the field, quantify the value derived by the patient even within sufficiently large bounds? Evolved to the point?.... Evolution has no predetermined goal!!!!
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 hello, never said evolution had a predetermined goal,,just that ones comes before another...we must 'qualify the value',,that way the proletariat doesn't starve comrade
americanmaoist 1 year ago
@americanmaoist You're assuming the system will evolve to a certain point by a top down process and you're thinking linearly. Were talking about highly nonlinear adaptive systems. You're wrong on so many levels on economics and evolution. You give