EBHarvey Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 How is the Wall Street/banking fiasco-Ponzi scheme any different? Because if you refuse to participate in the Wall St. fiasco nobody puts a bullet in your head, starves you to death, or ships you off to Siberia. Free markets don't have to murder the people that disagree with them - last I checked capitalism didn't do this to people: I've done stuff I ain't proud of, and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obtuseangler Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Because if you refuse to participate in the Wall St. fiasco nobody puts a bullet in your head, starves you to death, or ships you off to Siberia. Free markets don't have to murder the people that disagree with them - last I checked capitalism didn't do this to people: yeah, those good ol' free markets don't do nobody no harm. Just ask the folks from the Love Canal or Bhopal. Personal insult, attack, name calling or antagonistic post - stay on topic - this means you - I'm serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogboy Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 yeah, those good ol' free markets don't do nobody no harm. Just ask the folks from the Love Canal or Bhopal. or anybody who lives downwind from an older coal fired power plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBHarvey Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Yup, same thing. Looks like we'll be relearning this lesson soon anyway. I've done stuff I ain't proud of, and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBHarvey Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 yeah, those good ol' free markets don't do nobody no harm. Just ask the folks from the Love Canal... You're equating the poisoning of people living on top of toxic waste to the wholesale slaughter of over 100 million innocent, disarmed citizens by their own governments as a fundamental component of an ideology that has killed more people than every war in the history of humanity combined. Freakin seriously? I've done stuff I ain't proud of, and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obtuseangler Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 You're equating the poisoning of people living on top of toxic waste to the wholesale slaughter of over 100 million innocent, disarmed citizens by their own governments as a fundamental component of an ideology that has killed more people than every war in the history of humanity combined. Freakin seriously? No, I am simply showing that your patently absurd and false claim that "free markets do no harm" for the drivel that it is. Personal insult, attack, name calling or antagonistic post - stay on topic - this means you - I'm serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamakatsu Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 You're equating the poisoning of people living on top of toxic waste to the wholesale slaughter of over 100 million innocent, disarmed citizens by their own governments as a fundamental component of an ideology that has killed more people than every war in the history of humanity combined. Freakin seriously? Love Canal happened here in the US along with 1000's of other examples of the free market gone amuck. God knows how many people are dead as a result. How many Americans have been killed for their political ideology? I am by no means an advocate of communism, but more an advocate of common sense. Free markets are not a panacea and the notion that they will always do what is best lacks common sense. Now feel free to ask the requisite question, "what does the government do right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk Freud Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 You're equating the poisoning of people living on top of toxic waste to the wholesale slaughter of over 100 million innocent, disarmed citizens by their own governments as a fundamental component of an ideology that has killed more people than every war in the history of humanity combined. Freakin seriously? Yeah, I heard Scandinavia is a real blood thirsty socialist haven Why co-mingle economics with forms of government? There's nothing in the constitution about capitalism... only private property. The USofA is a MIXED ECONOMY, as it should be. Not every sector of an economy should be run for "profit". You're equating totalitarian actions with an economic paradigm According to your logic Republics engage in forced labor, sex slavery, and human trafficking. Both the PRC and USSR were Republics, right? Destroying psychological barriers to the stateless society of free people since 1966. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBHarvey Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 No, I am simply showing that your patently absurd and false claim that "free markets do no harm" for the drivel that it is. Please don't attribute your bizarre interpretation of what I wrote to me by quoting it. I wrote: "Free markets don't have to murder the people that disagree with them." You consider that patently false and absurd drivel? I've done stuff I ain't proud of, and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBHarvey Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Why co-mingle economics with forms of government? Because they are inextricably linked. There's nothing in the constitution about capitalism... only private property. There most certainly is - the powers of the federal government are constrained by the Constitution so that only capitalism can exist. The government hasn't the power to make laws that communism requires exist. I've done stuff I ain't proud of, and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk Freud Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I wrote: "Free markets don't have to murder the people that disagree with them." Unless you consider that Vietnam was about access to resources and "free markets"... and the war against Iraq is about Oil. Two very clear instances when capitalism aka "free markets" did in fact have to murder the people that disagree with them. It's never about democracy, only destroying foreign governments to make the world safe for capitalism. Not to mention that the capitalists doing business with China have the blood of the Chinese people on their hands as much as the Communists themselves. Buying from China = supporting forced labor, slavery, child labor, sex slavery, and human trafficking. We all know it happens, it can't be ignored for profits. Destroying psychological barriers to the stateless society of free people since 1966. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk Freud Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 The government hasn't the power to make laws that communism requires exist. Nice straw man I'm talking reality... a mixed economy. Although there "may" be constraint that lead to choosing one form of economy over another, it's not absolute. Not to mention the quaint and antiquated ideas of the 18th century hardly apply to the juggernaut economy we currently have. How about less "theory" and historic legacy and more pragmatic realism? Destroying psychological barriers to the stateless society of free people since 1966. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 All that Love canal stuff is the gummits fault, that whole story is a pinko coverup. so send that propaganda down the road. “My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.” Ayn Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Claw Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 In a nutshell, Socialism/Communism or similar systems don't work because they run contrary to human nature. When you get down to it we look after ourselves or family first. By it's very fundamentals, S/C rewards the least productive and penalizes the most productive, efficient or innovative. In the USSR the biggest winners were those who got their "fair share" by doing the least. You gained nothing for increased output or efficiency except perhaps more sores and blisters. (atta' boy's, pats on the back, shiny stars or medals don't count) Primarily for those reasons S/C hasn't worked in the past, isn't working now and won't work in the future. Actually Americans can look into their own past for a S/C experiment. Long before the USSR, before Lenin or Marx, it was tried right here, actually before the USA existed. The Pilgrims tried it as per pre-arranged planning. It was a failure. When it was replaced with individual initative and enterprise, the output greatly increased. Nothing like reaping the fruits of one's own labors. (literally in their case) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe a predominantly Free Market economy is the best, fairest and most equitable economic system. IMO it seems the further things deviate from the free market, the more problems arise. Sooner or later, like it or not, market forces force corrections, the greater those deviations the stronger (probably more painful) those corrections will be. The problem with Free Market Capitalism is that it can work too well or unchecked, can run out of control. I would say China is a good example, Growth has averaged about 10% but pollution has grown at twice that rate, along with injuries, deaths, swindles, corruption, property and liberty loss, etc. IMO an effective government is necessary to coexist with Free Market Capitalism, it's primary purpose to regulate and maintain transparency. The market fails when the government fails in those functions, like it did prior to 1929 and 2008. It seems that lately the government's main purpose is wealth redistribution or socioeconomic reengineering. I would agree with PF as far as a mixed economy, however, I'm pretty sure we would part company when deciding government's role and influence. And the first time the republicans in the senate try a filibuster and act as obstructionists, I hope someone reminds you of this description, because it fits that scenario perfectly. A limited or deadlocked government is generally a good thing. That was the best thing about the Clinton administration. I recall someone saying " Be grateful you don't get all the government you pay for." ------------------------------------------------------------------- EC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimG Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 And this is partly why corruption and crime are so rampant in our global society. yeah crime and corruption is a new thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to register here in order to participate.
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now