Home › Forums › Political Corner › How capitalist is this site exactly?
This topic contains 19 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
Nathan R. Jessep 3 years, 4 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Disclaimer: This thread may end up being controversial. Believe me when I say that I am just asking a simple question.
I’ve noticed that quite a few people on this site talk about how great capitalism is. You know what? I agree. Pure socialism fails every time people try to implement it.
Here’s the thing: How much capitalism do you guys want? Is this site seriously full of an-caps?
Let’s not forget that several well-known anti-feminists have criticized an-cap economics. This includes Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, The Amazing Atheist and Men of the Infinite.
Furthermore, how much wealth redistribution does a country need to be called socialist?
Let’s not forget that economics is very complicated. When you are choosing an economic position for yourself, you basically have infinite options. People who think that everyone is either an an-cap or a socialist are creating a false dichotomy.
I will admit that anarcho-capitalism is a very pro-male economic system, but it is far from being the only pro-male system.
MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
Let’s not forget that economics is very complicated.
I have to disagree with you here. I balance my checkbook, my nation should balance its checkbook as well. Anything else is pure economic hokus-pokus.
Well from an economics stand point I think capitalism is better than socialism for obvious reasons. It rewards hard work and promotes innovation and efficiency, where as socialism makes it pointless to work hard and people don’t really give a s~~~ when they know the government will pay them regardless. With that being said, I realize some reasonable regulation and worker protections are needed…like I’m glad food producers have to meet safety standards and I can’t get fired for getting hurt on the job, etc.
From a social perspective…I realize we need some sort of safety net. I’d hate to see everyone who falls upon hard times ending up starving in the streets, and I realize some people have legitimate issues, but I also think our programs poorly structured and abused.
Basically our government is rewarding stupidity, bad choices, and gaming the system too much and the honest hard working people get f~~~ed with a stiffer tax burden because of that. I can’t give an exact figure on how much socialism is too much, but I can say I think we are well beyond that point and the government could use some cuts.
Just for some reference…
The two peaks are WWI and WWII and the 10% bump between 1920 and 1940 is probably due to social security being implemented. And another visual just to add to the thread…
I hear people all the time bitching about welfare spending, or bitching about military spending…but wtf 25% of our federal budget goes to pensions? Too bad we opted for socialist ponzi scheme pensions rather than 401ks or a pension program that workers actually funded when they were working rather than promising themselves generous benefits at the expense of the next generation. Same for healthcare…how f~~~ed up are we when we spend more on healthcare for a percentage of the population, as us middle class working people certainly don’t get any help from the government here, than it cost for the world’s most powerful military that employs 1.3million, another 800k in the reserves, and buys some expensive equipment?
F~~~ more government involvement in things like healthcare and retirement planning…they’re already f~~~ing us enough. Social security is another great example. If the program was abolished and we all had an extra 12.4% of our gross going into a 401k instead that would make us all millionaires after a 50 f~~~ing years of working if you start at 16 and retire at 67. Instead you get to pay into the giant socialist ponzi scheme that for most of us will end up being by far the s~~~tiest return on investment we get in comparison to other methods of investing for retirement we take advantage of. If you average 50k a year for 50 years of working, 12.4% is 6200 a year, compounded @ an average return of 7% over 50 years you’d retire with 2.8 million. If you don’t like the market, that same money put towards building a portfolio of rentals could build you quite the stream of rental income over the years. What is social security going to pay me when I retire…40k a year for 20 years then I die and that’s that? Must suck to be one of those people who pays in for 20, 30, 40+ years and dies before you ever collect a dime. Who the hell ever thought that was a good idea? If it wasn’t for social security I could retire earlier or retire richer…thanks socialists with your s~~~ty ideas!
I have to disagree with you here. I balance my checkbook, my nation should balance its checkbook as well. Anything else is pure economic hokus-pokus.
I agree man. Its such bulls~~~ how our government runs things. I’m pretty sure the socialist liberals call themselves progressives because they are progressively making it worse for the next guy in line.
I don’t know what the end game is going to be, but it isn’t going to be good. Even if the next president balances the budget and starts paying the debt down, I’m still going to get less benefit per dollar paid in taxes than past generations just because past generations handed my generation a mess. Basically we might end up getting 90 cents in benefits per dollar paid in where as past generations have been spending 1.10 while only putting 1.00 in the pot. Awesome for them…sucks for me!
Sadly though, most of my generation seems pretty brain dead and just wants to vote to get their college loans wiped, “free” healthcare, and pot legalized…so what’s probably going to happen is we’ll just see more government spending and more taxes until the system eventually crumbles in the same manner that countries that lean too far towards socialism all do.
Anonymous3Nothing good comes from socialism. Period. Full stop. People start then asserting rights to other people’s time, money, and effort. “I deserve free health care!” Okay, so why are you entitled to a doctor’s effort? Why are you entitled for someone else’s time being taxed away from them to pay for it?
Socialism is the incompetent and the incapable governing society. See Trudeau, Justin; Clinton, Hillary; Corbyn, Jeremy; Merkel, Angela.
I’ve noticed that quite a few people on this site talk about how great capitalism is. You know what? I agree
Well……. yeah! It’s the only way to roll, really.
Equality / socialism only makes everyone equal to “worst”, the “laziest” etc. If you can’t work and strive to be better, what’s the point? If there can be 9 winners in a race, why bother having a race at all? It cultivates laziness and mediocrity.
One of my favorite Disney movies is The Incredibles. The little boy (Dash) wants to compete, but his mother won’t let him , wants him to blend and he argues with her. “Why can’t I do the best that I can do??”.
“Everyone is special”.
“….which is just another way of saying NOBODY is”.
—
In a later scene, The parents argue about the way society keeps thinking up new ways to “celebrate mediocrity” and ignoring those who are genuinely exceptional. Yeah it’s just a cartoon, but it’s clever how they touch on this fundamental difference between capitalist and socialist values.
Well from an economics stand point I think capitalism is better than socialism for obvious reasons. It rewards hard work and promotes innovation and efficiency, where as socialism makes it pointless to work hard.
^ Right.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.Let’s not forget that economics is very complicated.
I have to disagree with you here. I balance my checkbook, my nation should balance its checkbook as well. Anything else is pure economic hokus-pokus.
Its not economics that are complicated its the fact that any government is a social construct which will often go up and down in its need for capital. Take for example WWII. The government went into debt for a purpose that was just.
Then again what we have now is government transformed into a cancer. The patient will eventually expire after a lingering death. What will come after, based on history, would be a totalitarian or Fascist-like government.It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Its not economics that are complicated its the fact that any government is a social construct which will often go up and down in its need for capital. Take for example WWII. The government went into debt for a purpose that was just.
Then again what we have now is government transformed into a cancer. The patient will eventually expire after a lingering death. What will come after, based on history, would be a totalitarian or Fascist-like government.Yup…what is our government going into debt for now? To provide free s~~~ for drug addicts and single mothers? To pay fat pensions for people who’s idea was to pass the bill to the next generation? To provide non-productive people with better healthcare than people working for low wages can provide for themselves?
I’m by no means against a little government assistance for people that fall on to hard times through no fault of their own…like those who just get wrecked by illness and can’t work, or people that are born with awful handicaps…but it seems like the majority of people I see getting such help are scammers, liars, fakers, and moronic drug users that chose to f~~~ themselves up.
I’ve got relatives that retired in their 40s with government pensions and healthcare for life. They range from early 60s to late 80s now and after 3% raises for 20+ years they have literally gotten more in compensation from the state in retirement than they did for the 20-25 years they worked, and their yearly pension payout is more than their highest earning year while working…who the hell in their right mind would have ever imagined that would be sustainable? We’ve come to a point in my state where for every state employee we probably have 2-3 who are retired thanks to generous early retirement packages. Every other job I’ve ever worked the ratio has been probably 4-5 working for every one retired…kind funny how that works when the average person retires in their 60s instead of their 40s. If they wanted such fat retirement benefits they should have been contributing like 80% of their pay to their retirement…not the token amount they do now while shoving the cost on to future tax payers.
Our whole system is a giant cluster f~~~ waiting to implode. I just hope I have enough time to make my money and get the f~~~ out before it happens. I’d like to say we’re going into debt for something just, like f~~~ing up some nazis, but we aren’t…its just due to rewarding laziness, stupidity, and poor choices, a total lack of ability to work within a budget, people voting for “free” s~~~, and a massive amount of generational theft.
Nothing good comes from socialism. Period. Full stop. People start then asserting rights to other people’s time, money, and effort. “I deserve free health care!” Okay, so why are you entitled to a doctor’s effort? Why are you entitled for someone else’s time being taxed away from them to pay for it?
Exactly. Dumbasses just think they can magically get s~~~ for free. The more you implement the concept that “You earn more so you can pay more,” the more you tell people “Stop trying to get ahead, we’re just going to keep punishing success.” To make it worse our government does it in the worst possible way…if you get rich enough to the point where you can live off capital gains you end up paying a lower tax rate than the middle class working folk. If you are rich its awesome, and if you are poor you get a decent living on the dole with no effort…but man does it suck to be middle class…you do the most work and have the highest tax rates. Like I said, I’m not even against a safety net, I realize some people can legitimately use help due to circumstances they never had and never will have control over, but with that being said I really don’t think it should be the government’s responsibility to feed, clothe, provide medical care, shelter, and educate able bodied adults to the extent that it currently does.
Universal healthcare is a great example…let’s just say we got it and they funded it with a 15% payroll tax…that’s a lot more money for me than I pay for insurance…which makes working a lot less profitable. Likewise it would drastically reduce the amount I need to retire. They’d literally incentivize me to stop working and go from being a producer paying into the system to a leech drawing out of the system. How is that a good idea? On an individual level I’m at a point where I hope we get universal healthcare soon so I can retire earlier and help collapse the system sooner, but on a conceptual level its awful!
Equality / socialism only makes everyone equal to “worst”, the “laziest” etc. If you can’t work and strive to be better, what’s the point? If there can be 9 winners in a race, why bother having a race at all? It cultivates laziness and mediocrity.
Even if the government gave everyone a brand new Mercedes…you’d still end up with people complaining its not fair because someone else has a lambo or a Bentley. You can’t climb up the ladder without having someone else be lower than you…and acting like we can put everyone at the top of the ladder is literally the same as all of us being at the bottom…its just a matter of perspective of when they put us all at the top or the bottom, were you on the top half or the bottom half to begin with? If you got some guy who busts ass studying and gets a good job, or who builds a business from the ground up and they contribute to society in a meaningful way…should they feel bad because they have a better standard of living then some guy who never applied himself to anything other than getting drunk and using drugs?
Yeah I realize some people get kinda screwed by things out of their control…a poorly timed layoff from their job, injury, divorce, etc, but I think in general a system that rewards work is superior to one that incentivizes stagnation…which is exactly what socialism achieves. Just like its pointless to run the race if everyone wins…why should I bust ass working hard if I’m not allowed to get ahead? Its easier to do the minimum knowing the end result will be the same.
Capitalism is dead. We now live under a Corporatism system.
Under capitalism everybody had at least some use to the system, now under corporatism the individual is about as useful and as much valued as a used styrofoam coffee cup.
From a European perspective, I don’t quite get why Americans, especially, are so fervently anti ‘socialism’
Over here, socialism is understood to be paying your taxes and then having those same taxes used to benefit everyone (roads, healthcare, education etc)
In the States you seem to have corporate socialism, your taxes are given to the corporations and you have to pay extra for basic services such as health and education.
Our governments are also hell-bent on following the US system, we are getting less for our taxes while the giant corporations are filling their pockets....And in our own despair, against our will, Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Agamemnon; by Aeschylus
I don’t know about labels, but I’d like to see government comprise less than 10% of GDP. We’re at maybe 35% presently.
We WERE at this 10% level of government about a century ago.
Is government really doing so much more for us than it was then?
No writes: I am a pure capitalist but give to my brothers in need.
Many Gilded Age capitalists contributed immensely to charity; Andrew Carnegie built libraries and a University.
Beer: Excellent charts. The FIRST thing you should be taught in Civics/government class are those two charts — how much of the Economy government has comprised since the Founding of the US (or at least the last 100 years), and how much of each $1.00 of federal spending goes towards various purposes. It would be great to require citizens fill in that graph and chart as a condition for VOTING.
We used to have many services provided by private charities a century ago. Government, in consuming vast amounts of wealth, has crowded out private charity to a great extent. For instance, I’d rather see children raised in orphanages than by single Mommies paid to breed. I’d also like to see many of the fraudulent recipients of disability insurance (DI), which has swelled in recent years, stop receiving payments and be prosecuted for fraud. The private charities did a better job of holding people accountable than does the government, before giving them resources, in my opinion.
Chir writes: Its not economics that are complicated its the fact that any government is a social construct which will often go up and down in its need for capital. Take for example WWII. The government went into debt for a purpose that was just.
Unfortunately, WWI and WWII are what created the trajectory of ever-growing government as a percent of GDP, even during peacetime. Any crisis is used as an excuse to expand government. Look at what FDR did during the Depression era. Government as percent of GDP, never dropped back down to its 10% levels. Perhaps the military defending our borders, and not drafting men to go serve in wars to protect others, is more just? War truly is the Health of the State.
Warratah: In my case, I object to the high fraction of GDP spent on government, because it takes away the choice of individuals on how to spend their resources. In other words, it reduces individual liberty. And certainly, we do have corporate welfare and subsidies that benefit large businesses in the US. I’m all for abolishing them!
From a European perspective, I don’t quite get why Americans, especially, are so fervently anti ‘socialism’
Probably because we all see how poorly run, wasteful, and corrupt our government is. Any “solution” that involves more government is a bad solution.
Over here, socialism is understood to be paying your taxes and then having those same taxes used to benefit everyone (roads, healthcare, education etc)
Well…over here its a bit different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
Look at government spending as a % of GDP. United States is at 41.6%…just for some points of reference…Canada is at 41.9%, United Kingdom at 48.5%, and Germany at 45.4%.
Why is it our government spends at roughly the same rate as a lot of countries we view as more socialist but we get so much less back for our dollar? We don’t view socialism as paying taxes for common services…we view it as wealth redistribution because that is how it works here. It gets redistributed to everyone but the middle class…the middle class just keeps getting told stfu and pay more.
Our recent healthcare overhaul is a great example. The government could have said “We are going to make a few tweaks, let it ride for a few years, and see if it helps bring the cost down.” If they were successful more people would have been accepting of it the next time they wanted to make tweaks to it or get more inovlved. Instead we ended up wit a giant steaming pile of s~~~ that did nothing to contain costs and is actually now being show to have accelerated the rate of price increase and in general make the system worse for everyone who doesn’t qualify to get it for free or heavily subsidized, and the solution some morons have is “Well we just need the government to get more involved!” What the f~~~? They made it worse the last time they touched it, why should we trust them with even more control?
In the States you seem to have corporate socialism, your taxes are given to the corporations and you have to pay extra for basic services such as health and education.
Again…see why many of us want the government to have less of our money and less control over our lives. We get taxed out the ass just so government officials can grant contracts and grants to to their friends and campaign donors and give “free” handouts to select groups to buy votes. Its not that paying for health care or paying for higher education on its own is bad, essentially we’re going to pay for it anyhow its just a matter of is it fair to pay direct for your personal consumption or let the government be the middle man.
I don’t see why a truck driver or a carpenter who never goes to college should have to pay for some c~~~ to get a liberal arts degree, and I don’t see why a single childless person who works a ton of overtime and makes a lot of money should have to pay 5x more for himself than a married guy making the same money who has a wife and 3 kids has to pay per person for healthcare. The big issue a lot of us have here is government intervention is responsible for driving up the cost of things like healthcare and higher education costs…how is giving them more power going to solve that?
Also, retired government employees who voted themselves generous pensions with yearly raises they didn’t fund while working are far more costly and parasitic than any amount of corporate welfare we have. Its probably why for every person here who will bitch about corporate welfare, you’ll probably find multiple that are anti-union, and unions are generally aligned with the left leaning socialist leaning politicians. With the way our government works more socialism is essentially the equivalent of setting the fox to watch the hen house.
I don’t know about labels, but I’d like to see government comprise less than 10% of GDP. We’re at maybe 35% presently.
We WERE at this 10% level of government about a century ago.
Is government really doing so much more for us than it was then?
I agree with you…but really its not possible to get back down that low short of abolishing social security because social security has become such a large part of our spending. Its a shame though that for years the government squandered tax revenue and the program is now on track to go in the red rather than be fully funded for the foreseeable future. Its back to generational theft on this one…my generation is going to end up doing some combination of paying more/getting less from this program because past generations ran it poorly.
But regardless I still don’t see why government spending couldn’t be cut back 5-10% of our GDP down below 30%. Its crazy how many morons here think we need more government while our government spending is at all time highs compared to any other point in US history other than the peak of WWII.
Unfortunately, WWI and WWII are what created the trajectory of ever-growing government as a percent of GDP, even during peacetime. Any crisis is used as an excuse to expand government.
Exactly…and once the government spends x dollars one year, the goal the next year is for them to spend x+y. Our government works like this on all levels. How often do we have agencies come in under budget and return the money to the general fund and request funding cuts for the next year because they are running efficiently…never? Its a race to spend it by the end of fiscal year otherwise they might not get a budget increase the next year.
It just reminds me of Bush’s last year in office, 700 billion was spent on TARP, and Obama’s first year what did he spend…825 billion on his “stimulus” bill. The next year the deficit dropped a bit and people acted like he did something good because he only had to borrow 1.1 trillion instead of 1.3 trillion. All I could think was wtf…why didn’t the deficit drop 700-800 billion? Our current path of deficit spending to the tune of hundreds of billions/trillions per year isn’t exactly sustainable…its just a shame more people are concerned with getting free s~~~ from the government than the concept that our current path is literally the equivalent of walking the plank…sooner or later we’ll find the end and its not going to be pretty.
Okay, I’ve gotten plenty of good responses in this thread. Thank you for your time.
I frequently speak to mainstream liberals. Many of them truly believe that misandry and anti-white racism aren’t real … but they believe that anti-rich discrimination is real. That’s one of the many reasons I hate mainstream liberals.
At least socialists are consistent.
MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
Beer: I should note, I’m for SLOWLY cutting government expenditures as a fraction of GDP. You’re absolutely right about the public pension time bomb — the way these early-retirement public employee schemes get implemented is because it buys votes of the State, Federal, and Local workers and their families. Nobody else cares because the cost is invisible in that it doesn’t come due for decades. Nor is this phenomenon unique to the US; France, Greece, etc have had generous pension benefits for the public sector and are faced with the same crisis. Really, it should be illegal to set up retirement schemes for government employees, that are reasonably projected to be insolvent/underfunded.
And of course, I also agree on social security — FDR’s ponzi scheme. I just wish we’d START to reform it, e.g. allow a certain percent of it to instead go to private-savings retirement. Older voters turn out in large numbers for elections, making it difficult to reform social security. And with this reform, it would not be viable without cutting current benefits OR paying for them with MORE deficit spending. As you know, that’s the dilemma; current workers pay for current retirees.
Realistically, to get to 10% GDP, you’d have to cut War spending and truly have Defense spending — i.e. a military to protect our borders against invasion and maintain a nuclear deterrent. Instead of pursuing follies in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
In my opinion, we actually have TOO MANY people insured; we need to reduce malpractice liability, allow nurses to do more procedures, and have more people paying out-of-pocket for care so that there is more competition. The way to encourage that is to get government out of health insurance. I would go back to medical savings accounts & schemes that encourage consumers to shop around. And allow more hospitals and competition between them. The ‘certificate of need’ from the Government, and other requirements, are often just used to monopolize a region.
It just reminds me of Bush’s last year in office, 700 billion was spent on TARP, and Obama’s first year what did he spend…825 billion on his “stimulus” bill.
But, but, but the Keynesian multiplier! If we just spend more on Stimulus, the economy must grow. After all, huge public debt worked great in Japan and Greece. And Central Planning from On High always results in the MAXIMUM economic growth, so government should pick winners and losers and run companies. That’s why the Soviet Union had such high GDP and economic growth under all those Five Year Plans. OOPS, all of that is false! As you noted, Democratic stimulus didn’t work, Republican stimulus didn’t work, stimulus is less effective than the private sector at creating economic growth, and I call bulls~~~ on the ‘Keynesian multiplier’ (i.e., it’s less than unity).
But, but, but the Keynesian multiplier! If we just spend more on Stimulus, the economy must grow. After all, huge public debt worked great in Japan and Greece. And Central Planning from On High always results in the MAXIMUM economic growth, so government should pick winners and losers and run companies. That’s why the Soviet Union had such high GDP and economic growth under all those Five Year Plans. OOPS, all of that is false! As you noted, Democratic stimulus didn’t work, Republican stimulus didn’t work, stimulus is less effective than the private sector at creating economic growth, and I call bulls~~~ on the ‘Keynesian multiplier’ (i.e., it’s less than unity).
Yup…you put the repubs in power and the dems hate what they want to spend money on. You put the dems in power and the repubs hate what they want to spend money on. People have totally lost the concept that smaller government/less taxes mean we don’t have to cross our fingers for our preferred candidates to get in power and spend money on what we want, we could all just keep more of our money and spend it how we see fit instead. If I want to donate more to charities that’s cool, if I want to spend it all on Cheetos and video games…that’s cool too, would I not still be stimulating the economy? Better than the government taking it paying someone to sit on their ass and be completely non-productive, or so some corrupt politician can push to give a grant to one of his campaign donors or his friends.
Just for example…I know so many c~~~s that think we absolutely must have a government funded planned parenthood. They are essentially telling me I have to donate to PP via taxation. Meanwhile not a single one of them has ever made a private donation to the organization. Kinda funny how that works…they want to strong arm me into funding something they believe in while they themselves wouldn’t give it a penny more than they have to.
Its bad enough our government works like this and funds so many stupid programs that cater to special interest groups and that are designed to buy votes, but the fact that we continue to borrow money we don’t have to do it makes it even worse.
This is also why the free market is better. If there is a need or a want for a particular good or service, it will be funded…otherwise it will go away. Just imagine if the government was in charge of making movies…if they decided we needed SJW Ghostbusters we’d already have parts 2, 3, and 4 in the works even though the first one bombed. In the free market, if the studio that made SJW Ghostbusters lost money on it, they wouldn’t bother making any sequels. If they did they’d end up going out of business and another studio that makes movies we actually want to see would gladly fill the void. You don’t effectively get people saying “We need to fund xxx program,” meaning you need to fund it because they don’t find it important enough even though they’d like it to stay around.
Anonymous3Hah, the Keynes multiplier: the real life equivalent of the penny in your savings account to pay for dinner at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Here’s the thing: How much capitalism do you guys want? Is this site seriously full of an-caps?
I only view an-cap as a better situation than what we currently have which is full on crony captialism or socialism. The capitalism I want tends to be along the lines of more classic lassie-fare capitalism. We haven’t had that since arguably 1913. A monetary policy change that resulted in 1890’s railroad collapse because of government massive involvement in subsiding railroad development that was also a boondoggle.
Let’s not forget that several well-known anti-feminists have criticized an-cap economics. This includes Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, The Amazing Atheist and Men of the Infinite.
Let’s not forget I don’t give a f~~~ about their views. They aren’t actual students of any economic system that I’m aware of. I actually looked into problems with Keynsian economics and how it warps the business cycle and f~~~s with the balance of savers and spenders in a local economy because of the insidious bad side effects easy credit creates, but I admit I will at least respect a legit keynsian economist on monetary policy issues more than those tards. Most of the time these people throw and base their views together without some sort of basis of historical understanding and context. Are you going to ask a regular group of plumbers about the best solutions for vector disease control issues?
There is a reason nations collapse through monetary abuse through various periods through out history. They understand some social retarded situations but it’s pretty obvious at face value at that point.
Furthermore, how much wealth redistribution does a country need to be called socialist?
The real issue is if you as a nation want to avoid being unjust and having a legal standard for wealth distribution.
If you have no moral qualms about types of theft permitted by the state. Well have at it. Everyone gets socialist at one point and it is up to those that produce, do business, and trade to make that call whether to take there business here or elsewhere. Be careful if Atlas decides to shrug eventually.
I mean is it ok to distribute primarily men’s wealth in divorce? What can go wrong?
Fundamentally socialism while it may seem to increase a nation’s economy, but it creates bubbles from easy credit that lead to massive collapses because guess what, people want to go where the money is going without having to work or produce goods for it. Then when the bubbles get to big, people’s lives get wrecked, and eventually currency abuse comes about and you get our current situation.
A situation that could have been avoided largely.
Let’s not forget that economics is very complicated. When you are choosing an economic position for yourself, you basically have infinite options. People who think that everyone is either an an-cap or a socialist are creating a false dichotomy.
I will admit that anarcho-capitalism is a very pro-male economic system, but it is far from being the only pro-male system.
You don’t have to tell me. But our current system suffers from the lack of free market regulations that are usually present such as sound money, bankruptcies being permitted, and other item such as the separation of government and economics that will permit competitors to come in and challenge large corporations instead of legislating new small competitors out.
Anonymous54I love capitalism.
Hope.
Competition.F~~~ socialism.
Every body gets a trophy.
Every one whines.
Anonymous42When the lights go out this psycho family of ours is gonna tear itself apart. (Riddic)
I have no pension, no social security, no stocks, and my realestate is being devoured by taxes.
I stopped paying the c~~~ suckers and am going into tax default just to get enough money to scavenge by.
The “collapse” has already begun and government sucks! They NEED, OH GOD, Need to get royally F~~~ED FOR EVERYTHING!
Collapse is the only answer to this diabolical form of government.
Pay their property taxes so they can comfortably retire with million dollar pensions and social insecurity?
I will BURN EVERYTHING FIRST BEFORE I WHO HAS NO FUTURE WILL FEED THEM WITH WHAT EVER LITTLE SCRAPS I CAN MUSTER.
F~~~. YOU. AMERICA! EAT YOUR OWN, MOTHERF~~~ERS!
How many shoes does Killery Creeton own?
I will cheer seeing these motherf~~~ers hanging from ropes in the trees!
They used to teach that what we have in the US is a ‘mixed economy’: Not socialism, not capitalism, but a mixture of the two. I see that as accurate.
MGTOW: The problem with government is ‘they’ is ‘us’: We vote the SOBs in. Not you and me, but the citizens. So the only resolution is to change public opinion. That is difficult to do because we have a system of public schools, which promotes collectivism, and a media that also promotes collectivism.
I don’t want to see a violent revolution.
When you converse with people, discuss freedom without pushing a particular policy. A colleague at work made a comment about having a fake ID when he was younger and getting in trouble, to which, I responded, ‘Back when America was a free country, in the West, you could just walk into a saloon and get a drink, and go upstairs to a bordello if you pleased. Cocaine could be purchased at a drugstore. And half of young black men were not in prison on drug charges.’ This kind of statement gets people thinking about freedoms we once enjoyed.
Beer: Exactly. Government should not fund Planned Parenthood, any more than it should fund National Right to Life, Focus on the Family, etc. In this ‘education’ campaign, we need to move past ‘one party good, other political party bad’: Both Dems and Repubs draw from different interest groups and vote for programs that favor those interest groups, but are bad for the country overall. You understand this, but the average person, does not. This is the ‘factionalism’ that George Washington warned us about in his Farewell address.
Beer writes: People have totally lost the concept that smaller government/less taxes mean we don’t have to cross our fingers for our preferred candidates to get in power and spend money on what we want, we could all just keep more of our money and spend it how we see fit instead.
I bought the car I’m driving under ‘cash for clunkers’. All that program did, was shift my buying to ‘now’ instead of the future. I then spent less in the future on cars (I’m still driving it after 7 years). The program, like any other, had administrative costs associated with it — advertising, government employees to disperse payments & check that cars qualified, the cost of fraud, etc — and so, on net, in my opinion, was NOT beneficial to the economy, because those resources could have been better spent by individuals making decisions best for them.
I have no pension, no social security, no stocks, and my realestate is being devoured by taxes.
How are you possibly losing money on real estate right now? That’s my business and I don’t get it.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
