communsim

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.

- V. I. Lenin.

pointless thread is pointless

>>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.

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.

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.

>>6 You're a fucking idiot.

>>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.

>>7
FailCream is trolling, you're biting.  FailCream is the cancer that is killing /newpol/.

>>8
What? This place isn't dead?

>>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.

>>8
I just called the troll an idiot.  The rest of my post was directed to >>4.

>>10


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.

>>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.

>>13,

>>12
here. Yeah, so where in your comment is something that appeals to the people that have to die in a war?

DRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Seriously, why do you have such an excellent command of the language, but fail so hard at understanding the people?

>>14
Because he can stop angry honest opinions over his performance from reaching the people who pay him to post here, obviously.

>>14

Wait a fucking second. I never posted #14, and YOU are not >>12

>>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.

>>15
>>16
wat

I posted #12, but I did -NOT- post #14.


14  Name: Anonymous : 2008-09-27 14:32

    >>13,

    >>12
    here. Yeah, so where in

THAT!  I didn't post #14.

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.

>>19
um ok

>>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.

>>21
>>Fannie May and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises.

And they were bailed out.

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.

>>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.

>>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!

>>24

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.

>>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.

>>27

So >>25 is coherent? Or you saying that high-risk gambling with hundreds of thousands of peoples lives is incoherent?

>>27

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.

>>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

>>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.

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?

>>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.

>>33
>>the banks would fail on the global market.

No, they would still compete, just at a rate they can cover.

>>unless you want your entire economy to be taken over by foreigners

Incoherent.

>>You regulate the shit out of them: Chinks will run your country.

Your post is incoherent.

>>31
Yes, lending money isn't gambling. Not even close to that.
Try to sue a casino after losing money on a slot machine, moron.

>>35

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

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.

>>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?

>>38

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.

>>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.