Stock traders are idiots.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Capitalism isn't there to benefit people. It's there for the benefit of those with the gold. Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.

Wasn't that the transcript from "Volunteers" where Tom Tuttle played by John Candy is brainwashed by the communists?  :lol:

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Capitalism isn't there to benefit people. It's there for the benefit of those with the gold. Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.

Wasn't that the transcript from "Volunteers" where Tom Tuttle played by John Candy is brainwashed by the communists?  :lol:

Never seen it, so if it is, it's a fantastic coincidence.

Though capitalism can improve peoples standard of living, it is only a side effect and is not a necessary outcome. In fact it is quite possible (and some think it desirable) to have healthy capitalism without rising living standards for the masses. It is even possible to have capitalism and to drive down the median living standards.

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
"Capitalism isn't there to benefit people.
Bla Bla Bla.
Hogwash, Bla Bla.
More hogwash, Bla Bla!"
---------------

Spoken like a true socialist Fluffy.

Capitalism isn't there for any reason.
Capitalism is the result. The result of an ideology that people should have the freedom to pursue any legal endeavor, for their own personal gain, without any interference from another person, group of persons, or the government. With that, comes the knowledge that you are not owed something by birthright or your station in life.

As a consequence of that ideology, we have the freedom to go as far as our brains and or muscles can carry us; up or down!

You rail against people that have more than you, without the wisdom of how they got that way, or what hardships they went through to get where they are. Sure there are people that inherit wealth, property, or station, but they have the very same opportunity to lose that wealth as anyone else has to gain theirs. Look at the Commadore/Amiga - Apple comparison for example. Twenty years ago they were more or less on equal footing, yet one is still selling computers and the other one isn't. I'm sure the owners of both companies wanted to stay in business and be the top dogs in the computer business, but because of bad business decisions, Amigans are using 10 year old computers while Apple is still selling new computers, and downloadable music and over 2 million iPods.

If both companies were exposed to your philosophy, both might still be in business, but they would be selling 68020 computers to the masses, and the owners would be making $75,000 a year in salary, with the profits going into social services. When an owner died the company would be taken over by the government or sold by the government and the profits seized for the good of the people.

Fluffy, here is the difference between the US and a socialist country. When the socialist get in power, what is the first thing they do? They start passing laws that limit freedoms. Personal freedom is the first to go, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Collective freedom is the next to go, because one day it might be more powerful than the government. The last thing they do is pass laws that stop the people from changing the form of government to something else. After a few generations go by the people have forgotten what true personal freedom is, and are frightened by the concept of it, just like an animal raised in a cage is afraid to leave when the door is opened. A good example is over in the gun control threads. I don't remember what your take on it is, but there are some people posting there that are truly afraid of guns and the freedom of anyone else owning one. It's a wonder these people don't want to ban computers, considering the damage a kid can cause writing a virus, or other types of computer related crimes.

The majority of people in the US are not afraid of personal freedoms and as a consequence we do not have laws limiting the kind of government we can have. If you wanted, you could immigrate to the US, start up a new political party based on whatever concept you like, and if enough people liked it, you could get elected. The only two offices you couldn't hold are president or vice president, but if your child were born here, he or she could. They could start a dynasty based on your political beliefs that could last for generations. The problem they or you would have, is the second you tried to take away one of the freedoms we have, you would be impeached.

Boy, this post is way too long, I'm quitting.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
When the socialist get in power, what is the first thing they do? They start passing laws that limit freedoms.

:roflmao:
Wakey wakey!
The US is app. as free as the USSR before Gorbachev.
The US aren't a democracy anymore, but a plutocracy/theocracy.

[Fade]

And you know this by listening to Wilse or Glaucus? :laugh:

[KennyR]

@Fade

And so you'd rather have a system that can be summed up as "First to get to the pie eats the whole thing. Everyone else was too slow. Tough luck."

The problems with such systems is that they are inherently unfair. Unfair systems don't last. What happens is that those who were quick or smart or just plain lucky get the edge, then they can take everything from everyone else, because nothing is there - apart from evil socialism - to stop them. Monopoly of the few, oligarchy, plutocracy, is the only outcome. The French and the Russians are at least two examples in history where the plutocracy became so unbearable that even the madness Marx dreamt up was preferable.

And you talk of people in socialist nations as dumb, timid cattle just because they aren't allowed to own guns and don't miss this "vital" right in the slightest? Why is it then that, culturally and economically, Europe is flourishing? They don't have your view on letting capitalism go and having it run by a few very rich people. They don't have your view on letting people do every single thing for themselves, including defence. And yet they seem very free.

And it's ironic really, that your attitude prevails in a country where you can get arrested without charge on anti-terrorism laws for saying "Bush is out of control" in a public place, and where every social reform is blocked by people who still think dinosaur bones were buried by Satan to lead us astray. How's that for freedom?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
And you know this by listening to Wilse or Glaucus? :laugh:

Well, maybe I should not take them seriously anymore because they take you serious. You are acting utterly childish, Fade. I really got a déjà vu of elementary school when you started trolling about my sig.

[Fade]

@ Speelgoedmannetje
 "I really got a déjà vu of elementary school when you started trolling about my sig."
-----------------

Well, you're the one that said if anything mentioned taxes, it had to be in the politics forum.

Those that live by the sword, get to change their sigs.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Well, you're the one that said if anything mentioned taxes, it had to be in the politics forum.

Not ANYTHING about taxes, but THREADS dedicated to taxes.
But anyhoo, it does not rectify your extremely childish behaviour.

[Fade]

I see that your sig. is now gone, so I guess that you got the point.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
I see that your sig. is now gone, so I guess that you got the point.

No, I got bored of it.
I can get bored soon

[iamaboringperson]

investing classes

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"Capitalism isn't there to benefit people.
Bla Bla Bla.
Hogwash, Bla Bla.
More hogwash, Bla Bla!"
---------------

You were the one who seemed perplexed by the movement of the market. If it seems mysterious, it's because you have in mind an incorrect model.

Capitalism isn't there for any reason.
Capitalism is the result. The result of an ideology that people should have the freedom to pursue any legal endeavor, for their own personal gain, without any interference from another person, group of persons, or the government.

First, you are immediately wrong. Capitalism is an ideology and not a result of anything but the ideology of capitalism.

The concept of having the freedom to pursue any legal endeavour without interference from persons or governments is dependant on the definition of what is legal by other persons and particularly governments which can change the law as time goes by, so in other words it means only doing what the government lets you. Got that?

If freedom means being allowed to do anything you want so long as you are allowed to do it, then everyone in the world is free.

Fluffy, here is the difference between the US and a socialist country.

Fade, the US IS a socialist country. It is also nominally democratic (well, a republic) and capitalist. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[mdwh2]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Capitalism isn't there to benefit people. It's there for the benefit of those with the gold.

There are benefits to people without "the gold" too. I like being able to choose who to work for, rather than having some central authority choose what I do. I like being able to choose who to buy my goods and services from, too. People who start off life with a lot of money are at an advantage, but then this is true in most if not all economic systems I've come across.

Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.

Saying that employed people are a liability isn't a view shared by many of the corporations that you appear to dislike. Employees make up a company, and are arguably its most important part. Of course, you are right in that there is a tendency towards getting the job done with as few people as possible, but how is this a bad thing? Should we employ people doing unnecessary work just so they can have a "job"?

As you know, too many people working produces upward wage pressure which leads to rising prices. This is called inflation and is very very bad because it unfairly penalizes people who do not work for a living, i.e. the investing classes who make their money from their money. Anything that makes money worth less is bad. Inflation does not have such a dire effect on workers because their wage is going up so a burgers worth of work today is a burgers worth of work tomorrow. However, if you just live off your money then your buying power decreases over time.

Except interest rates - that little thing which allows people to live off their money - tend to be higher than inflation, and this is just as relevant a point as saying that wage rises will increase in line with inflation. In fact, I would have thought that interest rates being higher than inflation tends to be more likely than people getting a wage rise (those evil capitalists don't like to give wage rises!), in which case, workers are more at a disadvantage from inflation.

A worker is more likely to be paying out a greater proportion of his wages for cost of living, so inflation hurts more there too (I know my rent has been rising quite rapidly the last few years - if I was a rich greedy capitalist, I wouldn't have this problem!)

[Dan]

mdwh2 wrote:
There are benefits to people without "the gold" too. I like being able to choose who to work for, rather than having some central authority choose what I do.

Socialism!=Soviet

Employed people are a liability. The fewer people working for a company, the less people that need to be paid.

Saying that employed people are a liability isn't a view shared by many of the corporations that you appear to dislike. Employees make up a company, and are arguably its most important part. Of course, you are right in that there is a tendency towards getting the job done with as few people as possible, but how is this a bad thing? Should we employ people doing unnecessary work just so they can have a "job"?

We already do it´s called bureaucracy, politics and financial sector:-)
The unlucky ones just get unempolyment benefits.

[mdwh2]

Dan wrote:

mdwh2 wrote:
There are benefits to people without "the gold" too. I like being able to choose who to work for, rather than having some central authority choose what I do.

Socialism!=Soviet

But socialism isn't mutually exclusive to capitalism.

If FluffyMcDeath (or whoever) wants to advocate a specific alternative to capitalism, then he should say what that alternative is. All the while it's just capitalism bashing, all I can do is pick particular examples - a centrally controlled communist society being the most common example.