Capitalism Has Failed—What Next?

[eccieuser9500]

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Is this another socialism thread?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Is this another socialism thread?

No, the socialism thread that LustyLad started is actually quite good. This is the capitalism thread. Eccieuser's been posting a lot of pictures with weird, stupid, sometimes kind of funny captions that keep people coming back for more. I especially like the one of the guy with a cigarette in his hand who's smiling like a cheshire cat. I think he might be Noam Chomsky. If so I hope he gets lung cancer and dies, and I'm really pissed off it's taking so long.

[I B Hankering]

Noam Chomsky is an inveterate liar and purveyor of falsehoods. Any jackass that distorts America's role in WWII by leaving out the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor deserves to be a dummy strapped to a fence post for Japanese bayonet practice in the same manner the Japanese tortured Chinese civilians.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Noam Chomsky is an inveterate liar and purveyor of falsehoods. Any jackass that distorts America's role in WWII by leaving out the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor deserves to be a dummy strapped to a fence post for Japanese bayonet practice in the same manner the Japanese tortured Chinese civilians.

Yes!!! I like that better than lung cancer.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Noam Chomsky is an inveterate liar and purveyor of falsehoods. Any jackass that distorts America's role in WWII by leaving out the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor deserves to be a dummy strapped to a fence post for Japanese bayonet practice in the same manner the Japanese tortured Chinese civilians.

+1

He was also an apologist for Pol Pot and his regime's genocide in the Killing Fields of Cambodia.

He's a professor of linguistics who knows nothing about economics. Asking him to propound on the merits of capitalism is like asking a janitor to diagnose a strange illness.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Socialism is for followers. Capitalism is for leaders. Sheep are like Socialist, they follow the heard. They don't know where they are going, they don't use their mind. Often times they are lead to slaughter. The Lion on the other hand is an animal that could represent Capitalism. He leads, he knows whats best for him. He doesn't need anyone to tell him what to do. He walks his own path even if no one else will follow him. He has the strength and the courage to fight for what he wants.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Socialism is for followers. Capitalism is for leaders. Sheep are like Socialist. They follow the herd, they don't know where they are going. Often times they are lead to slaughter. The Lion on the other hand is an animal that could represent Capitalism. He leads, he knows what's best for him. He doesn't need anyone to tell him what to do. He walks his own path even if no one else will follow him. He has the strength and the courage to fight for what he wants.

Hmmm... not sure if I completely agree with that. Capitalism puts the consumer in charge. Successful companies learn to listen and respond quickly to shifts in customer tastes and demand. New products and industries succeed or fail based on how well they anticipate what buyers will like, individually and collectively. A good leader doesn't keep churning out Edsels when the market is saying we want Cadillacs.

Centrally-planned socialist economies are managed from the top down, rather than the bottom up. This makes them deaf and unresponsive to consumer wants and needs. They tend to be stagnant and uncreative. There is no joy in work, no innovation, nothing worth buying with your wretched wages. As the old joke in the USSR went, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hmmm... not sure if I completely agree with that. Capitalism puts the consumer in charge. Successful companies learn to listen and respond quickly to shifts in customer tastes and demand. New products and industries succeed or fail based on how well they anticipate what buyers will like, individually and collectively. A good leader doesn't keep churning out Edsels when the market is saying we want Cadillacs.

Centrally-planned socialist economies are managed from the top down, rather than the bottom up. This makes them deaf and unresponsive to consumer wants and needs. They tend to be stagnant and uncreative. There is no joy in work, no innovation, nothing worth buying with your wretched wages. As the old joke in the USSR went, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

My post contains a bit of a metaphor to the Socialism vs Capitalism debate. Socialist don't like competition, either do sheep. Capitalist aren't afraid of competition they've learned to accept it.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Socialism is for followers. Capitalism is for leaders. Sheep are like Socialist, they follow the heard. They don't know where they are going, they don't use their mind. Often times they are lead to slaughter. The Lion on the other hand is an animal that could represent Capitalism. He leads, he knows whats best for him. He doesn't need anyone to tell him what to do. He walks his own path even if no one else will follow him. He has the strength and the courage to fight for what he wants.

lion? I think its more akin to wolves rather than lion.


socialism is like hyenas.

[nevergaveitathought]

in capitalism the entrepreneur has many bosses

the free market/consumers are in charge

the entrepreneur must provide a product or service the market wants and/or needs
competition is the force that protects against overcharging

its an exchange where each side of the transaction perceives value is received greater than what is given

its not a zero sum game or a system of winners and losers

the laws and court system aid and protect both the consumer and the entrepreneur

capitalism creates

in socialism/communism the people have one boss

the market does not adjust to what people want, people adjust to what is provided

there is not a free exchange, there is labor for a set amount of goods and services not of one's choosing

people have no redress, laws and courts are there to protect the system

socialism does not create, it merely marshals and rations

the natural consequence of socialism is moving from more order and organization to less order and disorganization

ever expanding and repressive law and policing is a requirement of socialism

[rexdutchman]

socialism doesn't create, it merely marshals and rations ,to the masses . Very true

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

lion? I think its more akin to wolves rather than lion.


socialism is like hyenas.

You can use any animal you like I guess, lol.

[eccieuser9500]

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/usa-national-debt/


Production in modern corporation is synonymous with capitalism. Like any other system; feudalism, a monarchy, or socialism, it always has it's critics, champions and skeptics. The cynic that comes up the most is Karl Marks. He witnessed what Charles Dickens magnified.


In the midst of the Industrial Age, Western civilation was comfortable living off investments brought on by slaves. No labor cost. Just livestock. The need for it to be discussed is as great as it was disgusting. Why?


The foundation of equality is freedom. Goods and services need a balance of ideas from not only those in charge, but those who provide them. When a select few convince the rest that what is good for the company is good for them, the whole have to live with the outcome. Except the masses were excluded from the decision making. De facto autocracy.


Dividends to shareholders, corporate bonuses and bailouts do not improve an economy that is turning to automation.
The cost of doing business is moving away from labor. Decisions are based on profit as opposed to reinvestment or research and development.


More or less government does not matter. Private capitalism or state run enterprises keep the same structure. The value of labor should meet the cost of living. When workers produce a surplus over what he gets, it creates instability. How stable is the current boom?


Do we have to go to war to recover? Or will the rhetoric just kick the can and never pick it up?

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Decisions are based on profit as opposed to reinvestment or research and development.

More or less government does not matter.

The Chicoms are the ones that steal intellectual property...the don't do any investment in research and development...it's all about profits to them...fucking self-righteous commies!!
More or less Gumment doesn't matter...more utter BULLSHIT...like you and all on the left MORE GUMMENT THE BETTER...AOC and the new Raw Deal!!
All the rest of that article is STRAIGHT from the commie manifesto...PURE FAILED BULLISHT!!
One thing I can't stand is a commie...the one thing more than that...is a self-righteous commie!!