Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the “free” workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are “entitled” only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery.
>>2
The truth really hurts, doesn't it, Capitalist fag? Maybe when you're in an actual soup line from all this bailout shit, you'll start to realize that you BACKED THE WRONG HORSE.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-26 11:04
Actually, this is true.
Present day society is dictated by a few.
However, it has nothing to do with capitalism, given that true capitalism is not employed to the fullest anywhere in the world right now, thus you cannot attack the idealogy itself based on evidence. Present day society is nothing more than dictatorship that thrives on a little bit of free marketeering, absolutly not capitalism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-26 13:01
Why do people think Lenin was an intellectual? Everything he says is obvious. >>3
The bailouts are the acts of a planned economy. Capitalism itself is just a political theory devised by marxists and has never actually existed. >>4
Don't mix up capitalism with the free market. It's easy to make that mistake but the dictionary definitions describe different things.
>>5
The complainers still backed the wrong horse. They backed the Capitalists ... you know, the Jews who advocated the free market when the times were good, who then turned 180° and advocated government bailouts (i.e. Socialism) when all that free market SHIT blew up on their gambling asses.
Any way you slice this, guys with Jewish names are getting loads of PHAT CASH from the government and guys without Jewish names will have to produce the wealth to cover that flow of money. This is what Zionism is all about: ENSLAVING THE FREE MEN OF THE WORLD UNDER A JEWISH BOOT.
>>4
>true capitalism is not employed to the fullest anywhere in the world right now, thus you cannot attack the idealogy itself based on evidence
Isn't that exactly what the Russkies used to say about communism? Face it, there's never going to be an "ideal" form of ANYTHING in the world, much less an ideal political system.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-26 23:01
>>7
FailCream is trolling, you're biting. FailCream is the cancer that is killing /newpol/.
>>3
capitalism? what the fuck do you call the government coming in and telling banks to give loans to certain groups of people or face getting their shit raped?
"Comrade, give these people the loans! They are just as EQUAL in paying them back as people with money!"
it smacks of severe socialism to me when an entire industry is regulated and forced into situations because of the government.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-27 11:20
>>8
I just called the troll an idiot. The rest of my post was directed to >>4.
Well, I -do- know that if you want to fight a war, you use a socialist government style, even if I don't completely understand why it works, I -do- understand that -is- what works if you want troops. Being socialist with the companies doesn't make sense with debt, because it's joblessness that caused the sub-prime mortgages to fail, and a socialist free-market isn't capitalism. It was DE-REGULATION that caused the banks to send out so many sub-prime mortgages to create 'debt dollars', because the banks definitely didn't have the cash on hand to back them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-27 14:18
>>6
Both the private and the public sectors played a role in this disaster, thus it cannot be attributed to either sector and some bizarre system in which only that sector exists but the current system itself where both exist with their respective equity.
um.. I'm not sure what to make about that bit with the jews.
>>7
That's what I meant when I said capitalism is just a political theory devised by marxists. In truth a utopia would have to be more plural utilising both public and private organisations aswell as many others, since no one is omnipotent and knows what best people should be free to try any organisational structure they wish to find out what works best.
>>10
Corruption of market forces by state intervention in the economy was a major factor, but not just regulations which force banks to give high risk mortgages.
>>12
This may be a result of the fact that the state is a monopoly over force and thus the only entity that can wage war.
Wait a fucking second. I never posted #14, and YOU are not >>12
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 6:30
>>14
Well arguably it would appeal since a soldier would want to be commanded by the only entity capable of waging the war since they are also the only entity capable of winning the war. It need not be socialist, Ghengis Khan's war machine was far from socialist.
Deregulate food and medicine! That way you can have milk with penicillin and medicine with mold!
The deregulated banks gave out loans with money they didn't have. You can yell "They were forced to by Clinton" till you're blue in the face, but they FAILED because they made bets they couldn't back(you see, regulated loans means they only loan 20 dollars for every dollar they have. They were making loans at 1000 dollars for every dollar they had.) because of McCain and Bush.
>>20
They weren't deregulated. Fannie May and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises. You are essentially saying private banks which purchased these mortgages are stupid for trusting the government, I agree with this point but it's hardly entirely the private sector's fault.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 10:20
>>21
>>Fannie May and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises.
And they were bailed out.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 10:29
Anyway, the point is, those who failed would not of failed if they were regulated, get it? If you make bets at a casino with money you don't have, you deserve to get your legs broken like everybody else when you lose. If there's rules against making those bets, people get to walk to work the next day.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 10:38
>>22 >>23
So the government is a sacred inviolable infallible entity that always gets everything right and if they regulated absolutely every aspect of the economy they would do everything perfectly and there would never be any problems.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 11:05
>>23
>If there's rules against making those bets, people get to walk to work the next day.
No, as the company would've gone bankrupt due to inability to compete with foreigners.
Oh, are you also anti-globalization?
That sure was a great a idea the last few dozen times, right?
All hail Dear Leader Kim Jong-Anonymous-Communist-Dumbfuck!
Except it wasn't one person that was hurt, it was hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is perfect, so neither is government, but if that many people get fucked, then the rest of the system gets hurt. You're saying that big rewards, so big risks are worth it. I recommend you play Russian roulette with your own fucking skull on the line, and not everyone's.
>>25
Mcdonald's in other countries are doing fine, as opposed to the ones in America. Connect your rectum to your mouth.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 11:38
>>26
Way to prove your point by going off to something compeletely irrelevant!
Wait, no! It just means that you've the Assburgers and thus unable to speak coherently.
Oh, I get it. McDonalds franchises in America can't get the loans necessary to place more orders for supplies because of the current economic difficulties. McDonalds is everywhere. That's not a bad thing because McDonalds will continue to run in other countries even if the ones in America cannot. You see, the problem with >>25 is he assumes that I'm saying there should be rules against globalization. I'm not. We definitely should be opening branches of "Bank of America" in Pakistan. But we shouldn't be competing by putting everyone at risk. You want to compete, you risk yourself, don't involve me and my family in your stupidity.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 11:58
>>28
I'll make it easy for you, Asspie.
Comparing business model of banks to gambling is a false analogy and shows your naive understanding of economics.
And secondly, going off about McDonald in response to >>25 means either
1. you didn't understand it
2. you don't know what the fuck you're talking about
3. both
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 12:09
>>30
Ah, so you're saying that loaning someone money isn't a gamble? Because it is. I explained Mcdonalds, because that was the incoherent part, near as I can figure. Otherwise, you're bitching about rules against making loans you can't cover, and when everyone's bank gets closed because some fucktard felt it was AWWWW-RIGHT to make years worth of loans he couldn't back, then runs away with a billion-dollar severance package, he really didn't risk anything personally.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 12:13
Woops. That(>>31) was a bit of a run-on sentence. Sorry. Should I expwain it bettah to poor widdle you, or can you understand what I was saying?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 12:19
>>29
You can't be that fucking stupid, seriously.
The point of >>25 was that your regulations would mean that the banks would fail on the global market. So, unless you want your entire economy to be taken over by foreigners you would go the same road that has been used a million times over.
Furthermore, the idea to bail out the big companies is a desperate attempt to prevent another Great Depression. Read up on that, faggot.
Summed up:
1. You let them fall: Lots of people lose lots of money. Sure, tell the customers that it was their responsibility to do research on the company before trusting. They're not gonnabe be any more happy about that.
2. You regulate the shit out of them: Chinks will run your country.
You didn't loan it to the casino. You gave it to them. When you loan money, you're hoping you get it back. You might be wrong.
However, if you make several years worth of sub-prime loans with money that wasn't yours, and then your bank fails and 10,000 people lose their jobs, and you get a billion-dollar severance package, you definitely were -not- gambling
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 12:40
However, the bank owns the house you get a mortgage for until you pay off the loan. If they don't get the money, they get the house.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 13:01
>>36 >>34 You didn't loan it to the casino.
Yes. You might be wrong.
No. As there's a law that say that they guy who got the money has to give it back. If he doesn't that means he's in for a compulsory auction of his stuff.
Go to bank and try to get a credit. Before they agree to anything they'll check whether you can be relied upon.
See, you don't even fucking know the basics.
Incoherent. Your post is incoherent.
Did I teach you a new word and now you're itching to try it out?
Well, you're doing it wrong, dumbass.
Since you've yet to go through economics 101, I'll give you a question that you can think about untill you're old enough for the real stuff:
What prevents company A that makes ten times the profit of company B to eliminate it's competitor for good if not the law?
Unless you -only- risk your own damn money, I don't wanna fucking hear about it. You just ruin whoever, and say "there ain't no law."
This is why vigilantes are cool.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 13:16
>>39
Well, if you're only here to vomit your worthless opinion out of your ass you should start posting under RedCream with peahippo@hotmail.com in the email field.
So, because there is no law against ruining 10,000 peoples lives, that means there shouldn't be?
No, not really pwned. Not at all.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 14:18
>>46 >>46
Dude, what comeback!
And in the next episode our asspie superhero will ask questions such as
"If you fart downwind and there's no one there to hear it, does it still smell?"
and "WUTS UR FAVORITE POKEMAN? I LIEK PIKACHU!"
>>48
No, I don't believe that you see anything past the top line with post number, name and date.
You just link to the pervious post to make a completely retarded comment about whatever bugs you at the moment.
>>53
We really need to make laws that prevent ALL banks from lending out more than 10 dollars for every one they have.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 15:28
>>54
Come to think of it, that would cause deflation and increase jobs. Hmm, that's not a bad idea.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 15:39
>>54 >>55
aspie talks to himself for the 4th time now
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-28 15:49
>>56
No, I'm right. Think about it. If banks want to create more money, the only way to do that would be to have more money. The best way to do that would be people that have jobs depositing money, and hence it would then be in the banks best interest to have depositors with jobs. Deflation occurs because there's less cash, and the purchasing power of the dollar increases.
>>26
The government risked everyone's money by keeping interest rates too low. Maybe you should tell that to the state.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-29 20:55
>>24
So the free market is a sacred inviolable infallible entity that always gets everything right and if they regulated absolutely no aspect of the economy it would do everything perfectly and there would never be any problems.
I'd say that the current American situation is far from Socialism, at least - real Socialism. Don't believe those Republican nutjobs - Bush isn't a Socialist, American isnt' Socialist, you're most likely not Socialist - You don't just become Socialist by caring for others, believe it or not.
However - Capitalism has its flaws, and they're quite obvious at the moment, perhaps people will actually, humm - I don't know, consider looking at alternate idealogies now instead of grabbing hold of their right-wing mentalities and staying there for all they're worth.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-02 21:05
>>62
The government takes money at gunpoint from the productive and distributes it to freeloading kike bankers and parasitic niggers. If this is not socialism, what is it?
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-02 21:20
>>60
Of course not, that's not my point. Because people are stupid and make mistakes there is no point in putting all your eggs in one basket.
If someone in a free market makes a mistake ONLY THEY SUFFER.
If someone in the state makes a mistake EVERYONE SUFFERS.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-02 22:06
You are CORRECT, sir!
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." -- Winston Churchill
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-02 22:11
I agree that regulations are the only thing that make monopolies thrive. The really bad ones even.
People just don't want to admit that government doesn't want to protect the people necessarily. It's main priority is to look good and grow larger. Regulations look good, and require more legislation. With more bills passed, the politicians look better. And everyone is happy.
Is it the best solution? No. But thats also subjective to each scenario. Sometimes it can be good, who knows. Most of the times though, it sure isn't.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-04 13:39
The current western political system is plutocratic, particularly in the US.
Because the same people who rule are in control of the media, (example: Jeb Bush) they succeed in convincing the majority they live in a democracy, which makes them much easier to control, and willing to work, fight and even die for their "freedom."
Everything the government does is motivated by the desire for more power or money for their already wealthy friends who generally own the means of production in every area of the economy.
Until the true nature of the media is exposed to the "masses," and somehow independently regulated for complete honesty and integrity, we will be bombarded with propaganda and never see the light of democracy.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-04 15:09
>>the same people who rule are in control of the media, (example: the old-money Jews of the Ochs-Sulzberger family who own the Jew York Times, Jew Michael Eisner who owns ABC and Disney)
fix'd
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-04 15:42
I believe one of the ways the media has tried to suppress conspiracy "theories" is by trying to associate these ideas with anti-semitism, reptilian shapeshifters, and other offensive or impossible ideas.
I don't know if poster 68 on this thread is genuinely anti-semitic, or trying to take away credibility from post 67 by aligning it with bigotry.
Either way, I think 68 is either ignorant or engaging in misinformation.
There may well be some Jewish people conspiring, but it is foolish (or deliberately harmful to the debate) to say ALL Jews are conspirators, or that ALL conspirators are Jewish.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-04 15:56
>>69 >>67 was talking about who is in control of the newsmedia, the entertainment media, who owns the big-city newspapers, who owns the TV networks, who dictates what we can and cannot say.
Are you denying that the hand of the Jew can be seen in all these places?
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-04 17:27
>>70
I posted both 67 and 69, and I think "the hand of the Jew" as you put it, is seen whenever you spend enough time looking for it.
One can just as easily point the finger of accusation at Christians (eg. Bush), Freemasons, the CIA, FEMA or the Neo-con elite when it comes to the wider sense of corruption (though I do think those last three ARE exclusively anti-social!).
I can't say I know exactly who pulls all the strings, but a lot of non-Jewish people profit from the lies on TV (eg: Jeb and G.W. Bush), are they in collusion with a secret network of Jews? I can't prove they aren't, but I doubt it.
And whether they are or not, it's unhelpful to any serious debate (not to mention dangerous) to accuse one single race or religion of secretly working against society.
If we want to live in a free and tolerant democracy, we need to remember that the enemy is corruption, not Judaism, Islam or Catholicism.
How is it that kikes, who are less than 1% of the population, utterly dominate all the movie production studios, all the television networks, all the newspapers--all the daily agitprop, in other words, that tells us all every day what we are and aren't allowed to say, what we are and aren't allowed to think, what ideas and forms of expression are acceptable among the "respectable people" on the prolefeed, and how we are to view the world?
And how is it that they also utterly dominate the banking system and the stock market, so (surprise surprise!) they're making out like bandits AGAIN in this month's government bailout?
They're not even 1% of the population, Puppet Boy. Look at the strings and tell me who pulls them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-07 9:28
If you guys weren't so concerned with blaming jews for everything perhaps you would have the time to do your own research and come up with an argument that holds water. Especially the national socialists, I've noticed a lot of marxist terms here, "means of production", "plutocracy", now I'm not saying that's why you're wrong but I mean Germany did some pretty bad things under national socialism, pretty fucking terrible things. China and Russia didn't do very well under communism either and apparently socialism is just a stepping stone to communism. I don't think we should go there.
>>73
In other words, you CAN'T explain why Jewfilth dominates the media, banks and critical government agencies while being only 1% of the population of the USA.
It's the biggest conspiracy on Earth, and you refuse to even see it. The U.S. Congress just voted to dump $800 billion all over it, and again you refuse to see it. That's because the media has trained you all from BIRTH to avoid seeing the Jew. You'd rather stick a fork in your eye than see the Jew.
Name:
Jewfilth2008-10-07 15:42
>>74
Ya know, Mr.RedCream, we're really getting tired of you spouting off this nonsense about us...
>>76
Like I said: You're trained from birth to not see the Jew.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-08 2:46
>>77
So logic was created by jews to stop people from seeing that they control the world.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-08 15:10
>>78
Bingo. That's why retardation and ignorance is the way to protect the Aryan race.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-08 15:20
>>79
Strangely those also seem to be the source of capitalist cocksucking arguments aswell, so, there is a lot those two fundamental American values safeguard.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-10 3:26
>>80
The nazis opposed capitalism, nazism is short for national socialist. Also the idea that protecting the Aryan race is a fundamental American value is retarded and ignorant.
>>67
Yeah, that's fine and all but the United States isn't a Democracy. And if it is then we're in big trouble. The founding Fathers never intended for the United States to be a Democracy, because under a Democracy, the majority rules, and having an angry mob decide the rule of law is extremely dangerous and would eventually lead society into anarchy.
However the United States is (or should remain to be) a Constitutional Republic, where Government and the law of the land are dictated by a written Constitution. Government chained down by the Constitution remains at a sane size and because of its chained down state, people have no worry about their civil liberties being infringed.
I enjoy the fallacy that most Liberals seem to expound that they can enjoy no infringement on their rights whilst under a big Government. That's silly utopia thinking, because an already big Government has collective ambitions to only get even larger, thus your rights are curtailed even more in the process.
I would bump this thread, but I felt it would be better to just keep it at where it is for the time being, until some moron who enjoys bumping old threads for no reason comes along. Good day.