Bill Gates warns of more pandemics !!!

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
That is not the option. When my brother what is 20 years old he worked for a company called Chem-Lawn spreading fertilizer and insecticide on lawns from a tanker truck. His doctor told him he was absorbing carcinogenic chemicals into his body so he quit and started his own lawn company. He simply avoided applying fertilizer and insecticides in a water suspended fashion. He was not a slave because of capitalism he was the master of his own destiny. Some years later when he decided he would like to do something else, he simply changed his line of business because capitalism made that possible.

He was in a position to quit. He obviously had money(probably inherited) and started his own business. Most people dont have that luxury.

Money makes money in capitalism. Most people working paycheck to paycheck do not have that luxury.

Your not in touch with the majority of people. So far just you, your mother and your brother.lol

Your example was taxes which are levied by governments. Taxes is a step along the path to Socialism because you are taking part of the means of production in the name of the people.

How else you going to pay for the debt capitalism incurs?lol
I used to do that. Then I started my own operation and leased commercial real estate closer to my home. Capitalism makes that possible. It appears that you have enslaved yourself to Socialism.

I understand. Your eating at the pig troughs of capitalism and dont want anyone taking your life of luxury away. :) Capitalism makes it possible off the backs of the working class.

It appears that you have a slave driver sentimentality. From their point of view? Capitalism is dandy.
Yes, they did choose to sell it; that's exactly what they did! In fact Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island was quite insistent that all transactions with native American Indians be done on terms that were indistinguishable from those that would be extended to English settlers. And as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened. Great lengths we're gone to in order to establish which Indian tribes had the best claim on any particular parcel of land before any transaction could take place.

Nonsense if they did it was under the barrel of a gun. Do you know what they paid the Indians for America? Last time I checked they have been oppressed since they were conquered.
The European settlers were considered by the Native Americans just to be a different tribe. The settlers did the best they could to distinguish in the internal Indian wars which tribe had the superior cars before participating if they participated at all. The suggestion that these Indian wars would not be taking place but for the European settlers is the most ridiculous fantasy imaginable.

Ya they helped early settlers survive in America. So let me get this straight. It was Indians that wiped out Indians, and the European settlers are innocent?LOL
Speaking of "best interests" it might be in your best interest to actually learn some American history, and avoid America haters like Howard Zinn. Rule number one, an objective historian must first be objective.

I actually like Howard Zinn. And have studied my fair share of history. Seems that YOU need to brush up on your history which seems detached from reality.
No need to refer to ancient history because this is what you said just a few comments above "the Indians . . . didnt chose to sell it." Unless you mean to say that the American Indians gave the land away for nothing, that narrows it down to thievery at least according to you.

What amount did they give them? Any wealthy Indians around, not on the government dole? Here is what Native Indians think about America


You could just as easily say that capitalism is supported by productivity. Both of those are forms of capital that are deployed in the creation of wealth.

What comes first in Capitalism. Debt or productivity? LOL DEBT! Its the very foundation of capitalism.

Name any economic system not supported by labour/productivity? lol
If you lend me money and I pay you back with interest the only tax that is levied is an income tax on the interest. And the tax required a constitutional amendment to Levy. If you're saying that you would be happy if we didn't have an income tax I agree. I love it when we agree.

Id be happy if there was no tax OR Interest.

I'm sorry, but I have a BS in accounting, so I'm afraid I do know what I'm talking about.

No you dont. You only been taught what you need to know to serve the capitalists. It is clear your perception of economics is not supported by reality. Just your capitalist books and your own interests.

When you're running your own business you're not guaranteed any return on your labor or service. If you're able to generate any revenues, and there's no guarantee of that, then you may cover some of your expenses, or all of your expenses, or all of your expenses plus some compensation for your labor. That compensation for your labor is called profit. The exception is if your business is a corporation then it is seen in the eyes of the law as a separate person and that separate person could hire you in which case you're a slave to it, but when you get paid it's an expense, and not a profit. That is a legal distinction, the fact is if you're paying yourself, its profit or you were increasing the debt of your enterprise which will have to be resolved by repayment or bankruptcy.

I disagree. There should be distinction between money earned and profit. They are NOT the same thing. I look as earned as something you worked for. Profit is just money made from an investment.

You know, as remarkable as that comment is, I think that may be your honest opinion. So by all means, please don't let me take any of the shine off of your Potemkin view of economics.
Listen I understand you want to support your own interest over the interest of the masses. I understand all too well greed and selfishness.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The richest elitists in this world ALL have old money from war and slavery. The richest elites in the world run the banks and own all the large parcels of land.
Obviously that is not true. I just gave a personal example from my mother's family they got their 3000 acre farm by means of homesteading. There was nothing about them that was elitist.
Product of capital formation? ROTFLOL!! Resources are "capitalist formations"?
So you're going to in a handful of words convert the notion of "capital formation" into "capitalist formations?" Isn't there any point at which the absurdity of your argument dawns on even you?
Ummmmm you are mistaken.
You don't know the difference between "capital formation" and "capitalist formations," and you believe that I'm mistaken? That is unintentionally hysterical and not in a good way.
SLAVERY is capitalist formation.
Actually that's not true. The presence or absence of slavery does not affect whether capital formation proceeds. This can easily be seen by comparing the agricultural enterprise of Thomas Jefferson who owned slaves, to the agricultural enterprise of John Adams who used only hired help. We witness in both enterprises capital formation, which provides proof positive that the presence or absence of slavery has little impact on capital formation.
Bingo! Sahara has no resources or oil like Iraq,
There are areas in modern Israel which were as desolate as the Sahara desert prior to 1947. These areas now are the site of productive farmland. That transition is the result of capital formation. The difference was not natural resources it was human effort.
Thus useless to the elites to conquer.
Yeah this is the point that you seem to be missing. People want to steal things after a great deal of human enterprise has going into create capital formation.
You notice America and the west only enter conflicts(under the excuse of liberating the people) in resource rich nations only?
Really? What resources did we get by invading Grenada?
OHHHH so you CLAIM most of YOUR homestead was given to slaves for free?
No, it's a matter of record. Anyone with any inclination can go to the county courthouse and follow the land abstracts see all of the transfers for themselves. Whatever you interpret is my "claims" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
(And probably taxed to death)
You really know nothing about real property at all. The tax on farmland is negligible particularly in rural southern states.
since they couldn't make money off their backs anymore to work the fields.
Opportunities for emancipated slaves were largely speculative given that there was no track record for this kind of thing. But these people who already knew had a farm could take that productive capital and the skills they already had and turn that into an income.
I bet all those parcels of land have since been bought back by capitalists.
Do you mean white capitalists? They were all capitalists. Quite a number of them did sell their land to stake life in places like Chicago and Detroit where, in their judgment they might make a better living. That's the wonderful thing about capital, it free people to make exactly these kinds of decisions for themselves.
Did your mother own the land,
Briefly when my grandmother died. My grandfather had children by two wives. His first wife had fives sons who survived until my grandmother's death. And my grandmother had three children. So if you do the math you can see that all the errors got about as much as a slaves share or in case of the five brothers a little less. The farm was distributed per stirpes rather than pro rata.
was she a slave,
She certainly served descendants of slaves. When she was a school girl there were sharecroppers on the family land who were no doubt descendants of slaves. My grandfather would get up at four in the morning and milk all the cows while Me'Ma was gathering eggs, and it was my mother's job to deliver milk and eggs to all the sharecroppers on our way to school every morning.
did she have slaves??
Are you laboring under the impression that my mother was somehow older than her own father? He wasn't born until 1873. So even he didn't own any slaves.
Tax is a capitalist invention!
No it's not. If anything it's a violation of capitalism. Capitalism is a small sliver of a much larger idea "thou shalt not steal." Taxes are diametrically opposed to "thou shall not steal."
100% And the capitalists have used taxation to "commandeer" people's earnings and property.
No that would be totalitarian socialists. But I repeat myself.
Not shocking…
Its funny how you just described a greedy capitalist boss that coerces his workers to work harder so he can increase profits, and then say socialism coerces? LMAO!
I did nothing of the kind. Giving an example of how an idiom can be used in a sentence is not a statement of fact nor is it an expression of opinion. I simply exposed the fact that you were wrong about the limits of how the word "driven" is used.
The slave driver is different from slave driven.
Driver is the active verb (The source of the action), were driven is the passive verb (The object of the action) . Beyond that what is the difference?
We are discussing the word "driven" nor driver.
In the example, the person who says "my boss is a slave driver" is in fact the person who claims to be "driven." So it's hard to see what you're objecting to. A left glove is not a right glove but they're both gloves.
Ya. You are mistaken.
You haven't managed to make that case yet I don't know what you're waiting for.
LOL. Your opinion.
An opinion on which you would get extraordinarily good odds in Vegas.
Are you still going on about this nonsense that capitalism means though shall not steal?LOL
That's the wonderful thing about truth it's always as new is tomorrow's sunrise. It never gets old.
Go ask the Native indians, go ask the Mexicans, go ask Iraq
We could've asked my great grandmother she was a Cherokee Indian. I expect that she rather preferred living in a large farmhouse rather than a small wigwam.
Im not talking about the "means of production" I'm talking about resources,
I suppose a good songwriter with a good memory doesn't particularly need any resources to produce new songs. But most other people who are producing a physical product (at least) need resources, to produce a product, which makes resources the means of production.
No private citizen should be able to own resources.
So the minute they came up with the idea for Uber, everyone should have their car commandeered? After all with the advent of Uber drivers, every car constitutes the means of production.
Most were not bought but stolen by conquers. Even if America bought land from France? France STILL stole it from the Indians.
What are you talking about? The French didn't send any conquering armies into North America! The French sent a bunch of trappers in wilderness men.
Ohhh so you come from elitist families. That explains it. LOL
Absolutely not! My ancestors were round-heads not cavaliers.
Difference between Capitalist and Monarchs? Like what?
Is this a trick question? Obviously capitalists make a contribution to society where monarchs are a parasite.
They were both run by a central back?
Obviously not. That's where the example of my mother's family farm came in. Have you forgotten that quickly what the discussion was all about? You need to be able to keep up with a conversation.
They both thrive on taxation, debt and interest.
The both have capitalist middlemen known as nobles and merchants.

Now what do Monarchs have in common with socialism? Socialism is rule by the people. Do the people rule under a Monarchy? LOL Please elaborate.

Elitists have nothing to do with capitalism? LOL they are the very foundation of capitalism. Bankers and credit!
At this point you're just repeating arguments that we've dispatched earlier in the thread.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
So why wouldn't you wanna take an injection promoted by a Malthusian like Bill Gates?
Relating to population control, Bill Gates, and vaccines. Get a load of this. Think this was four yrs after Bill's Ted talk


There has been a report that the UNICEF and WHO are intentionally sterilizing women in Kenya. The news which was carried by LifeSiteNews, a Catholic publication, said that the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association accused UNICEF and WHO (World Health Organization) of rendering millions of women and girls barren. That they are achieving that through an undercover vaccination program for anti-tetanus, which is sponsored by the Kenyan government.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
He was in a position to quit.
Everyone is.
He obviously had money(probably inherited)
Obviously he didn't have money. He bought a $350. 1970 Chevrolet pick up. His partner bugged out on him and helping him start his new business became my summer job while I was in college.
and started his own business. Most people dont have that luxury.
I assure you that there was nothing luxurious about mowing lawns all day, bogging down to the axles in the dump when we were unloading the grass clippings at dusk, going off the clock for an hour for dinner and then loading up the truck again to landscape of McDonald's Drive Thru that we couldn't start until midnight, and wouldn't finish until about 10:30 the next morning. All of this in a 35 hour day that started at 6 o'clock the previous morning. I'm talking about starting to load the trucks at 6 o'clock not getting up at 6 o'clock. You see that's called human capital. More commonly it's called sweat equity. And the wonderful thing is everybody has sweat, so everybody can do it.
Money makes money in capitalism. Most people working paycheck to paycheck do not have that luxury.
Actually most people working paycheck to paycheck don't have that much brass. My brother started with absolutely nothing.
Your not in touch with the majority of people.
If you mean to say that most people don't have enough brass to start their own business I would have to agree with that. But I think you mean that most people don't have enough money, and my brother didn't have any money.
So far just you, your mother and your brother.lol
Me and my mother and brother want? It's one thing that you want to ridicule my family, but normally you give the grounds for the ridicule.
How else you going to pay for the debt capitalism incurs?lol
Was JP Morgan a capitalist? He never borrowed money.
I understand. Your eating at the pig troughs of capitalism and dont want anyone taking your life of luxury away.
My luxuries? I have a question for you assuming you drive an automobile, what year model is that car?
Capitalism makes it possible off the backs of the working class.
Can you give an example of a working class person but I've made money "off the backs of."
It appears that you have a slave driver sentimentality. From their point of view? Capitalism is dandy.
If capitalism were dandy, they wouldn't own slaves. Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange of goods and services. The slave is not doing anything voluntarily. You seem to have a hard time resisting getting it exactly backwards.
Nonsense if they did it was under the barrel of a gun. Do you know what they paid the Indians for America? Last time I checked they have been oppressed since they were conquered.
Expecting you to actually read history is obviously a bridge too far. So I'll mention this book for the benefit of anyone who might be reading this thread who would actually deign to read history, which you have proven in this thread you were absolutely determined never to do "Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul." If the day ever comes that you actually do deign to read history, you will know that you were wrong. Between now and then I suppose you will just content yourself with your delusions that you know what you're talking about.
Ya they helped early settlers survive in America.
Helping was a reciprocal relationship. Settlers help the Native American Indians with technology like fishhooks that substantially improved their survivability. These kinds of trade goods were highly prized by American Indians for very good reasons. Well, the same reason they were very valuable to English settlers.
So let me get this straight.
I certainly hope you can. That would be like a breath of fresh air.
It was Indians that wiped out Indians,
Obviously the Indians have not been wiped out. My great grandmother was Cherokee Indian.
and the European settlers are innocent?LOL
Innocent of what? The extinction event that you dreamt up in your prior comment?
I actually like Howard Zinn.
Of course you do, that's where you learned to hate America. Don't let the fact that he's a liar dampen your enthusiasm. By all means, think everything you've always thought, believe everything you've always believed, and you can happily live in your box of mirrors until the day that you die, completely unperturbed by the terrible experience of expanding your mind. I mean, if you did that you might actually have to change some of your opinions, and we can't have that!
And have studied my fair share of history.
Nothing is more obvious than the fact that you have not studied a "fair share" of history.
Seems that YOU need to brush up on your history which seems detached from reality.
You can only make that deluded comment because you have not read history. You may have read Howard Zinn, that's not history.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
. . . continued
What amount did they give them?
I'm not going to read the history to you, that's why I gave you the reference above.
Any wealthy Indians around,
I've never run into a wealthy American Indian who stayed on their socialist reservation. No matter how many millions their casinos rake in, all the money seems to be stolen by the socialist overlords at the top.
not on the government dole?
I don't know, can you get a Maserati on the government dole?
Here is what Native Indians think about America

Why am I suspicious that all the Native American Indians didn't get together and produce this video?
What comes first in Capitalism. Debt or productivity? LOL DEBT! Its the very foundation of capitalism.
The backstory of every enterprise is fact specific, and unique to that particular enterprise.
Name any economic system not supported by labour/productivity? lol
So near as I can tell (if Venezuela is in the indication) Socialism doesn't seem to be supported by anything. And certainly Joe Biden seemed to be inspired by that when he was paying people more money to stay home and go to work.
Id be happy if there was no tax
I'd be a lot happier if our taxes were more similar to the way they were when the constitution was written.
OR Interest.
That's fine. But if you rent a car and pay a rental fee, why wouldn't you pay a fee when you rent money? I guess people with excess capital could stop renting out their money, and just blow it on JetSki's and skydiving, but I failed to see how that would improve anything.
No you dont.
Yes, from one of the top 10 accounting schools on planet earth. I don't mean to sound impertinent but facts are facts.
You only been taught what you need to know to serve the capitalists.
Given the personal services is all that someone starting out generally has to offer, and people without money don't hire you for any purpose, I supposed to axiomatic that the people you serve will be capitalists. Most people call that starting out.
It is clear your perception of economics is not supported by reality.
It's just dumb luck that whenever the Chicago school of economics approach is employed it works 100% of the time. But by all means don't let evidence play any role in your judgments about economics.
Just your capitalist books and your own interests.
So I have to ask myself do I want to get my economics from a concentration camp thin, starving Venezuelan or from Adam Smith and Art Laffer in a country where even our homeless people are fat.
I disagree.
Yeah, you do that a lot. From what I can tell you disagree with most of reality. The fact is, that nothing in my comment above is subject to disputes of any kind. It contains zero speculation, zero opinion, it is pure fact from the first word to the last.
There should be distinction between money earned and profit.
If you understood what I wrote you would also understand that from an accounting perspective whether we call something wages or profit depends entirely on how the enterprise is organized. There is absolutely no economic difference. There is only a difference in accounting nomenclature.
They are NOT the same thing.
They are exactly the same thing if you run own and run company. Now if you are simply an employee then your compensation is almost always charged off as an expense.
I look as earned as something you worked for.
If someone tries to run a company without working, it won't be a company for long, I assure you.
Profit is just money made from an investment.
Which may or may not offset the losses incurred from an investment. Investment returns and losses is a bit of a different category.
Listen I understand you want to support your own interest
Since you have your psychic crystal ball all shined up, how do I feel about the best interests of the American economy as a whole? And more specifically the question about what road is most likely to provide each and every American with the greatest possibility of success, and the country as a whole with the greatest living standard, the greatest amount of wealth available for charity, and the greatest amount of investment capital to ensure a brighter tomorrow. Don't you think that's an interesting question? What does your psychic crystal ball say I think about that? I mean, now that we know you have that psychic crystal ball, you can just enter comments for both of us, which would save me a lot of time.
over the interest of the masses.
Before you go there, perhaps you should reflect on what I commented on, immediately above.
I understand all too well greed and selfishness.
A common thread for people who want to commandeer everyone else's property in the name of "the people."
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
Obviously that is not true. I just gave a personal example from my mother's family they got their 3000 acre farm by means of homesteading. There was nothing about them that was elitist.
The richest elites are bankers and you claim thats not true because your mom has 3000 acres? LMAO

You mean they were given free land? I'd assume by the government? That doesn't sound too capitalist??? But Im sure once you got that property and wealth, you became a great lover of capitalism.LOL Makes sense!
So you're going to in a handful of words convert the notion of "capital formation" into "capitalist formations?" Isn't there any point at which the absurdity of your argument dawns on even you?

Lets go review our debate.

I said: "This is where you are mistaken. The source of capitalist wealth was via wars and conquest(land theft), slaves and taxes..... I think that is defined as more than coercion but as oppression."

You said:"There are very few places on planet earth that you can go where you can reliably say no wars were ever fought here. To start there and say that all capital formation is a result of wars and theft is just a complete softest argument. If there is anything worth stealing it's worth stealing because it's the product of capital formation before it's stolen. "

No 1) Capitalist wealth was derived from resources/land/labor(slaves)

You basically called that a soft argument.(Yet its the truth).

Then you say anything worth stealing is capital formation? (changing the discussion from capitalist to capital/ but really the same argument).

I respond by saying resources were a product of capital wealth?? What came first? Capital or resources? lol

Then you completely ignore the conversation and go to grammer, and argue able potatoes vs potato?

I KNOW what im talking about. Do you? Apparently not!

But now that I think of it? Lets talk about "Capital formation worth stealing".

As far back as Kings and Slaves? The Kings and Capitalist took credit for everything they built. But who really built everything? The slave and laborer. Usually with money they they collected or taxed from the working class.

And the fact the most business equipment and property were paid by? The Consumer. They pay the cost of merchandise/service plus more/profit so the capitalist can't make money to pay for it. And when its all payed off THEN he pockets the money.

If you want to change the subject I can do that too.

You don't know the difference between "capital formation" and "capitalist formations," and you believe that I'm mistaken? That is unintentionally hysterical and not in a good way.

I do. We were talking about the foundation of capitalism and capitalist wealth. You went on to talk about capital formation.lol I'm just trying to stay on the subject of CAPITALISM!!!
Actually that's not true. The presence or absence of slavery does not affect whether capital formation proceeds. This can easily be seen by comparing the agricultural enterprise of Thomas Jefferson who owned slaves, to the agricultural enterprise of John Adams who used only hired help. We witness in both enterprises capital formation, which provides proof positive that the presence or absence of slavery has little impact on capital formation.
Yes it is. We are talking about the foundation of capitalist wealth! There was LOTS of slavery involved in the formation of capitalist wealth.

There were two types of slavery. 1 forced slavery(by capitalists who had money and muscle to force them into it). 2) Voluntary slavery usual caused by capitalist taxes. You couldn't pay your taxes for what ever reason? You OWED and thus became slave to the tax collectors!



There are areas in modern Israel which were as desolate as the Sahara desert prior to 1947. These areas now are the site of productive farmland. That transition is the result of capital formation. The difference was not natural resources it was human effort.

Your going to use the biggest welfare state in the world as a poster child for capital formation? LMAO!!!

Yeah this is the point that you seem to be missing. People want to steal things after a great deal of human enterprise has going into create capital formation.

So If I steal your land and then build 20 houses on it? I should have no right taking it back because you created capital formation?? Try again!
Really? What resources did we get by invading Grenada?
Hmmmm lets see.


Was a free country. Enslaved by the French.

Invasion by the United States (1983)​


Coup and execution of Maurice Bishop​

Some years later, a dispute developed between Bishop and certain high-ranking members of the NJM. Though Bishop cooperated with Cuba and the USSR on various trade and foreign policy issues, he sought to maintain a "non-aligned" status. Bishop had been taking his time making Grenada wholly socialist, simultaneously encouraging private-sector development in an attempt to make the island a popular tourist destination.. Hardline Marxist party members, including communist Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, deemed Bishop insufficiently revolutionary and demanded that he either step down or enter into a power-sharing arrangement.

Therefore it seems they invaded the same reason they invaded Cuba. The British had established wealth on the island. The locals tried to regain control of the ISLAND, as they didnt like being enslaved to capitalism. So they tried to free themselves, but Imperial America(which is an extension of the British Empire) did not want the inhabitants to regain control of their resources the capitalist used to build the Islands Infastructure.


I didnt see Americans rush to Rwanda to stop the mass killings.

No, it's a matter of record. Anyone with any inclination can go to the county courthouse and follow the land abstracts see all of the transfers for themselves. Whatever you interpret is my "claims" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Did your mother pay for the land. Yes or No!!!
You really know nothing about real property at all. The tax on farmland is negligible particularly in rural southern states.

So your saying some southern states people don't or have never paid property tax on farmland?

Opportunities for emancipated slaves were largely speculative given that there was no track record for this kind of thing. But these people who already knew had a farm could take that productive capital and the skills they already had and turn that into an income.

In other words the answer is No, the salves did not get free property as you claimed..

So they could have got free land, Grew just enough to feed their families, and when the price of land goes up and sell it. Make a fortune. That doesn't sound capitalism. Capitalist don't give anything away for free. And next thing you know. someone like you inherits that wealth. Via ZERO labor.

Do you mean white capitalists? They were all capitalists. Quite a number of them did sell their land to stake life in places like Chicago and Detroit where, in their judgment they might make a better living. That's the wonderful thing about capital, it free people to make exactly these kinds of decisions for themselves.

I'd imagine most capitalists at the time were European, but I didnt say white. You did.

FREE WEALTH APPPY HERE! YOU WILL LOVE CAPITALISM!!

I watched a movie how they moved slaves to Compton a white upper class neighborhood. And gave them homes they KNEW they wouldnt be able to afford just so that they can make money and then foreclosure on their homes. The whites weren't thrilled about having blacks in their hood and did despicable things to them. Based on true story.

.................This is why I dislike debating with you. You stretch out the debates too long, usually by going off topic and or irrelevant material.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
Briefly when my grandmother died. My grandfather had children by two wives. His first wife had fives sons who survived until my grandmother's death. And my grandmother had three children. So if you do the math you can see that all the errors got about as much as a slaves share or in case of the five brothers a little less. The farm was distributed per stirpes rather than pro rata.
8 people, I'd assume your mom was one of them got 3000 acres? As much as a slaves share? Try again. I must not be understanding you properly.

She certainly served descendants of slaves. When she was a school girl there were sharecroppers on the family land who were no doubt descendants of slaves. My grandfather would get up at four in the morning and milk all the cows while Me'Ma was gathering eggs, and it was my mother's job to deliver milk and eggs to all the sharecroppers on our way to school every morning.
So your mom was a native Indian(or part native) working for(helping out i'd assume) blacks, who were sharecropping on your homestead???
Who did the sharecroppers work for? The government?

Oh I believe they were sharecroppers, which is a bit better than slavery, none the less slavery. But they didnt own the land. They did that because there was not enough liquid capital to pay workers and the land was abundant. Its how capitalist get blood out of a stone.
Are you laboring under the impression that my mother was somehow older than her own father? He wasn't born until 1873. So even he didn't own any slaves.
Yes shared his land with sharecroppers and slaves?

No it's not. If anything it's a violation of capitalism. Capitalism is a small sliver of a much larger idea "thou shalt not steal." Taxes are diametrically opposed to "thou shall not steal."

Tax was issued for MANY reasons but the MJOR reason for capitalist taxes is to pay capitalist debt!

Again with this gibberish. I have seen NOWHERE that states capitalism means though shall not steal.
No that would be totalitarian socialists. But I repeat myself.
Nope. They were capitalist who used the foundation of capitalism, debt and taxes to steal. And control socialist(as in self sustaining) farmers and profit off them.

I did nothing of the kind. Giving an example of how an idiom can be used in a sentence is not a statement of fact nor is it an expression of opinion. I simply exposed the fact that you were wrong about the limits of how the word "driven" is used.

I have the dictionary to back me up. You? Exactly. Your own opinion. Yes you are wrong. Capitalism IS greed driven.....It is what fuels and controls it.
Driver is the active verb (The source of the action), were driven is the passive verb (The object of the action) . Beyond that what is the difference?

I proved you wrong and you still insist.lol
In the example, the person who says "my boss is a slave driver" is in fact the person who claims to be "driven." So it's hard to see what you're objecting to. A left glove is not a right glove but they're both gloves.

See how you drag debates with nonsense?
You haven't managed to make that case yet I don't know what you're waiting for.

Yes I have. Your in denial. I understand how you like to twist reality to suit your desire to hold on to your wealth. Which I understand now. Was mostly due to inheritance....
An opinion on which you would get extraordinarily good odds in Vegas.

Again, your opinion, not rooted in reality.lo
That's the wonderful thing about truth it's always as new is tomorrow's sunrise. It never gets old.
They say if you repeat a lie enough times it will be perceived as the truth. I think that's what happened with you.

We could've asked my great grandmother she was a Cherokee Indian. I expect that she rather preferred living in a large farmhouse rather than a small wigwam.

No I want you to ask all the Indians that got butchered, when they got their land stolen.

I suppose a good songwriter with a good memory doesn't particularly need any resources to produce new songs. But most other people who are producing a physical product (at least) need resources, to produce a product, which makes resources the means of production.
Yes, but in this day and age he needs MONEY(which comes from resources/labour/service)...

He/she can write all the songs they want. if they want to make money off that song, they have to PAY!

I also notice how many musicians complain on how their agents rob them blind(another aspect of capitalism) and how they get paid peanuts. But thats another discussion.

So the minute they came up with the idea for Uber, everyone should have their car commandeered? After all with the advent of Uber drivers, every car constitutes the means of production.

A car is not resources of the land. Again. Invest in a dictionary.

We wouldn't need uber in a socialist society. And transportation over all would be much cheaper.


What are you talking about? The French didn't send any conquering armies into North America! The French sent a bunch of trappers in wilderness men.

Sure they did. Just like they did in Grenada.
Absolutely not! My ancestors were round-heads not cavaliers.
What does that mean "round heads"? IT seems you are partly of British English descent(that would explain the free land), Since you said

"I have ancestors who were agitators and members of parliament respecting the execution of Charles I."

Which reminds me. You didn't answer the question. Do you support Agrarian reform where they divide the land of the capitalist king(as you would put it, steal his wealth). among the people? Remember, those people believe it was the capitalist King who STOLE the wealth in the first place.

Is this a trick question? Obviously capitalists make a contribution to society where monarchs are a parasite.
Capitalist make NO contribution. They dont do anything for the benefit of the people but for PROFIT !! Serving self interest.
Obviously not. That's where the example of my mother's family farm came in. Have you forgotten that quickly what the discussion was all about? You need to be able to keep up with a conversation.

What does your farm have to do with the fact that both monarchs and capitalism are run by central banks? For all we know, your "ancestors" are connected to British Royals(elites) and that is why you were given free land. That might also explain why you dont pay taxes!!
At this point you're just repeating arguments that we've dispatched earlier in the thread.

Your failure to answer the question, since you know where it is going, is noted. NEXT!!
 
Last edited:

Thistle

Well-known member
The richest elites are bankers and you claim thats not true because your mom has 3000 acres? LMAO
I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, I didn't infer that. I'll thank you to correct the record and withdraw your misattribution.
You mean they were given free land?
If you mean did they acquire it without paying the government or a prior owner, then I guess the answer is yes. Do you honestly not know how a homestead works? They were required to develop the land, in their case they wanted to put a farm on it. Of course taking raw land and turning it into a farmed does require time effort and at least some money, but that's quite different from purchasing the raw land.
I'd assume by the government? That doesn't sound too capitalist???
We didn't create the univers, God took care of that. That basic fact notwithstanding nothing about that prevents capitalism from ensuing.
But Im sure once you got that property and wealth, you became a great lover of capitalism.LOL Makes sense!
If you don't produce some thing that people would rather have them the money they pay for it, then you don't have any wealth. The alternative to voluntary exchange of value is called theft. Theft has a long and varied history Socialism is only one of the more recent variations.
Lets go review our debate.
Okay, I've got the popcorn in the microwave.
I said: "This is where you are mistaken. The source of capitalist wealth was via wars and conquest(land theft), slaves and taxes..... I think that is defined as more than coercion but as oppression."

You said:"There are very few places on planet earth that you can go where you can reliably say no wars were ever fought here. To start there and say that all capital formation is a result of wars and theft is just a complete softest argument.
My apologies, obviously that should've been "sophist argument." The dictating function on my iPad leads to some pretty humorous errors. Forgive my failure to adequately edit.
If there is anything worth stealing it's worth stealing because it's the product of capital formation before it's stolen. "
Sounds like a pretty good general rule to me.
No 1) Capitalist wealth was derived from resources/land/labor(slaves)
I love this argument. Let's say you're a thief. Do you want to steal a shopping cart full of groceries before the shopper pays for them, or after the groceries have been paid for, and the shopper has cleared store security? It reminds me of the story about the preacher who is admiring a beautiful farm, white picket fence, perfectly manicured lawn, well appointed corral and stables, perfectly tended fields. The farmer comes to the gate and the preacher says, "The Lord has blessed you with a beautiful farm." And the farmer took off his straw out and scratched his head and looked down at the ground and then back up at the preacher and said "well parson that's true, but you should've seen it when He had it all to Himself." Yes, it is true this universe, and this world, and everything in it is valuable beyond all estimation, but in most instances the things that other people truly appreciate, come as a result of hard work.
You basically called that a soft argument.(Yet its the truth).
Which I'm going to blame on my stupid computer that can't spell. We won't mention the fact that I didn't adequately edit this before I hit the send button.
Then you say anything worth stealing is capital formation? (changing the discussion from capitalist to capital/ but really the same argument).

I respond by saying resources were a product of capital wealth?? What came first? Capital or resources? lol
I hope my illustration of the farmer above sheds a little bit of light on my argument.
Then you completely ignore the conversation and go to grammer, and argue able potatoes vs potato?
Well I'm not really sure exactly what you're talking about. My apologies if I didn't address what you intended to say.
I KNOW what im talking about. Do you? Apparently not!
That's the thing about socialist theory, it does an outstanding job of convincing people they understand things that they have no clue about. To your question, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
But now that I think of it? Lets talk about "Capital formation worth stealing".
I can't wait.
As far back as Kings and Slaves? The Kings and Capitalist took credit for everything they built. But who really built everything? The slave and laborer. Usually with money they they collected or taxed from the working class.
In the ancient world were always a lot of slaves because there were a lot of wars of conquest and soldiers ultimately were paid out of plunder. In many instances the plunder came in the form of holding valuable people for ransom or turning people who couldn't be ransomed into slaves. Rome was big on conquest so their economy transformed from an agrarian free market into a largely slave driven economy. But let's be very clear that the original state was very much like capitalism and the ultimate slave economy was a devolution from that.
And the fact the most business equipment and property were paid by? The Consumer.
That is not a particularly practical or accurate way of looking at it. This morning for example I bought a dozen eggs for 85 cents. The transaction was possible because I wanted the dozen eggs far more than I wanted the 85 cents that I had to part with to get it. The merchant now has my 85 and quite frankly, I don't care whether he buys more eggs, a new cash register or blows the 85 cents on Wine, women and Song. For all I know he got the dozen eggs for a quarter. I don't care because nobody's gonna sell me a dozen eggs for a quarter. No if I ordered 15 truckloads of eggs maybe then I'd get them for a dime a dozen. But I can't eat that many and I can't sell that many, so I'll continue to buy them for 85 cents.
They pay the cost of merchandise/service plus more/profit so the capitalist can't make money to pay for it. And when its all payed off THEN he pockets the money.
That's why he's in business. No one goes in the business to starve to death.
If you want to change the subject I can do that too.
Does this comment indicate that you understand how pedestrian and unconvincing your argument is? If not I'm really at a loss as to where this comment is coming from.
I do. We were talking about the foundation of capitalism and capitalist wealth.
"Thou shalt not steal" I remember.
You went on to talk about capital formation.
I don't claim to be a mind reader but obviously the term capitalism is derived from capital and therefore capitalism is about capital formation. Is that controversial to you?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
. . . continued
lol I'm just trying to stay on the subject of CAPITALISM!!!
So you couldn't be more on point than talking about capital formation.
Yes it is. We are talking about the foundation of capitalist wealth!
I discussed that above. The rise of the agrarian citizen during the Greco Roman period of history gave rise to capitalism. As I pointed out above the expansion of the political state and conquest led to slavery they had nothing to do with capitalism.
There was LOTS of slavery involved in the formation of capitalist wealth.
Are you laboring under the impression that the people who have money today got their money from ancestors who lived generations before? The economic fortunes a family lines vary widely from generation to generation. Occasionally a wealthy family succeeds and projecting their wealth through several generations but not very often.
There were two types of slavery.
Well no, not actually.
1 forced slavery(by capitalists who had money and muscle to force them into it).
Slavers, which is what you're talking about, were the international drug cartels of their day. If you want to call these pirates capitalists knock yourself out. It's an absurd argument, but by all means, the more bad arguments you offer, the better my case looks.
2) Voluntary slavery usual caused by capitalist taxes.
Capitalists don't levy taxes government to do. Where do you get these really stupid counterfactual arguments?
You couldn't pay your taxes for what ever reason? You OWED and thus became slave to the tax collectors!
Government contracting is not really capitalism. You wouldn't know that if you lived around Washington DC which I did for about a decade. There are a lot of companies that are there because they are looking at one client do US government. But that's kind of a quasi appendage to capitalism. Government contracting is really more akin to mercantilism than it is capitalism. It is very lucrative but of course all Mercantilism is very lucrative to the people who are connected.
Your going to use the biggest welfare state in the world as a poster child for capital formation? LMAO!!!
Voting for a welfare state superimposed on a capitalist system is pretty common. Our skinny Scandinavian. They're sick and tired of being called socialists. They are very proud of their capitalist system but as a voting public they have voted for a large welfare state over the top of it.

So If I steal your land and then build 20 houses on it?
If you steal something presumably you go to jail. This happens quite a bit. People go to the courthouse online, and find deeds then forge a quick claim transferring the property to themselves, take out a mortgage pocket the money and let the homeowner before closed on because they have no idea there's a mortgage. People do go to jail for that.
I should have no right taking it back because you created capital formation??
Nobody suggested anything remotely similar to that. The various homestead acts in various states had nothing to do with stealing anything from anybody.
Hmmmm lets see.


I didnt see Americans rush to Rwanda to stop the mass killings.​

America invaded Grenada because they took an entire college full of students hostage.
Did your mother pay for the land. Yes or No!!!
No more or less than any of the slaves who received a share that was indistinguishable from hers.
So your saying some southern states people don't or have never paid property tax on farmland?
I know exactly how to say that if that's what I meant, and I choose not to. So I would recommend you reread my comment.
In other words the answer is No, the salves did not get free property as you claimed..
Of course they were giving free property. Where on earth are you getting the inference that they were not given free property.
So they could have got free land, Grew just enough to feed their families, and when the price of land goes up and sell it.
As farmland goes, this was rich bottom-land
, very valuable. It was excellent for growing things like cotton or soy beans or any other number of things. I expect that many people sold their 40 acres and use the proceeds to go to places like Detroit or Chicago and live whatever lives they chose to live.
Make a fortune. That doesn't sound capitalism. Capitalist don't give anything away for free.
That is really an extremely stupid comment. If you actually believe that you are not nearly as intelligent as I have given you credit for being. Capitalism is a completely voluntary system and in a voluntary system people are free to do with their possessions anything they like including give it away.
And next thing you know. someone like you inherits that wealth. Via ZERO labor.
I inherited exactly zero of that wealth. When my grandmother died the older generation (my mothers five older half brothers) petitioned to sell the farm, and if memory serves, I think she got $25,000. She was subsequently diagnosed with cancer and doctor bills exceeded that amount many, many times over.
I'd imagine most capitalists at the time were European, but I didnt say white. You did.
Here in America if you're not making your way through burglary or robbery you're a capitalist.
FREE WEALTH APPPY HERE! YOU WILL LOVE CAPITALISM!!

I watched a movie how they moved slaves to Compton a white upper class neighborhood. And gave them homes they KNEW they wouldnt be able to afford just so that they can make money and then foreclosure on their homes. The whites weren't thrilled about having blacks in their hood and did despicable things to them. Based on true story.
I've heard Larry Elder discuss that I just don't remember what years were involved.
.................This is why I dislike debating with you. You stretch out the debates too long, usually by going off topic and or irrelevant material.
There's an easy corrected for that…
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, I didn't infer that. I'll thank you to correct the record and withdraw your misattribution.

Yes you did! Lets recap.

I said" The richest elitists in this world ALL have old money from war and slavery. The richest elites in the world run the banks and own all the large parcels of land."

You said"Obviously that is not true. I just gave a personal example from my mother's family they got their 3000 acre farm by means of homesteading. There was nothing about them that was elitist."

What did I say that was "not true"?


If you mean did they acquire it without paying the government or a prior owner, then I guess the answer is yes. Do you honestly not know how a homestead works? They were required to develop the land, in their case they wanted to put a farm on it. Of course taking raw land and turning it into a farmed does require time effort and at least some money, but that's quite different from purchasing the raw land.

AHHHH so your wealth is due to socialist giveaway!!! You CERTAINLY didn't earn 3000 acres.


We didn't create the univers, God took care of that. That basic fact notwithstanding nothing about that prevents capitalism from ensuing.
You got free land. Even the communist cronies got free land. And loved communism for it. Therefore you love capitalism for it, although it wasn't capitalism that gave you free land. It wasn't theirs to give away in the first place.

If you don't produce some thing that people would rather have them the money they pay for it, then you don't have any wealth. The alternative to voluntary exchange of value is called theft. Theft has a long and varied history Socialism is only one of the more recent variations.

HUH? Land is wealth. You were given FREE LAND! FREE Wealth!
I love this argument. Let's say you're a thief. Do you want to steal a shopping cart full of groceries before the shopper pays for them, or after the groceries have been paid for, and the shopper has cleared store security? It reminds me of the story about the preacher who is admiring a beautiful farm, white picket fence, perfectly manicured lawn, well appointed corral and stables, perfectly tended fields. The farmer comes to the gate and the preacher says, "The Lord has blessed you with a beautiful farm." And the farmer took off his straw out and scratched his head and looked down at the ground and then back up at the preacher and said "well parson that's true, but you should've seen it when He had it all to Himself." Yes, it is true this universe, and this world, and everything in it is valuable beyond all estimation, but in most instances the things that other people truly appreciate, come as a result of hard work.
Really? Im looking for some barren lake front property for free. You'd think according to you it would be worth nothing, but not to the sellers.lol
I hope my illustration of the farmer above sheds a little bit of light on my argument.

Ya give me some free land with a gold mine or some oil, and I will get back to you. :)
That's the thing about socialist theory, it does an outstanding job of convincing people they understand things that they have no clue about. To your question, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

It is clear you do not. Lets agree to disagree.
In the ancient world were always a lot of slaves because there were a lot of wars of conquest and soldiers ultimately were paid out of plunder. In many instances the plunder came in the form of holding valuable people for ransom or turning people who couldn't be ransomed into slaves. Rome was big on conquest so their economy transformed from an agrarian free market into a largely slave driven economy. But let's be very clear that the original state was very much like capitalism and the ultimate slave economy was a devolution from that.

Did you even read my points, other than going off topic?

Are you saying Rome Initially didnt have slaves? ROTFLOL!!! Stick to accounting please!
That is not a particularly practical or accurate way of looking at it. This morning for example I bought a dozen eggs for 85 cents. The transaction was possible because I wanted the dozen eggs far more than I wanted the 85 cents that I had to part with to get it. The merchant now has my 85 and quite frankly, I don't care whether he buys more eggs, a new cash register or blows the 85 cents on Wine, women and Song. For all I know he got the dozen eggs for a quarter. I don't care because nobody's gonna sell me a dozen eggs for a quarter. No if I ordered 15 truckloads of eggs maybe then I'd get them for a dime a dozen. But I can't eat that many and I can't sell that many, so I'll continue to buy them for 85 cents.

Therefore you would not want to pay cheaper for the eggs? You'd rather pay more so the egg dealer can lead a life of luxury? Your arguments are laughable,.

That's why he's in business. No one goes in the business to starve to death.
But many go into business to make unreasonable profit(due to greed), and you seem to support that.lol
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
I discussed that above. The rise of the agrarian citizen during the Greco Roman period of history gave rise to capitalism. As I pointed out above the expansion of the political state and conquest led to slavery they had nothing to do with capitalism.

Rome gave rise to capitalism? ROTFLOL!!!! EVERYTHING was owned by the Kings, his relatives, friends and allies! And the public was heavily taxed. How is that capitalism?

Eventually his allies(rich nobles) assassinated Cesare, now THATS capitalist greed....


Are you laboring under the impression that the people who have money today got their money from ancestors who lived generations before? The economic fortunes a family lines vary widely from generation to generation. Occasionally a wealthy family succeeds and projecting their wealth through several generations but not very often.

People that have ALOT of money yes. The rest served these people with old money and did unethical things.

Well no, not actually.

Yes.
Slavers, which is what you're talking about, were the international drug cartels of their day. If you want to call these pirates capitalists knock yourself out. It's an absurd argument, but by all means, the more bad arguments you offer, the better my case looks.

WHAT???? They still have slave(sweat) shops today and have had them for decades! Big corporations in South America and now China! You lost your case long ago!
Capitalists don't levy taxes government to do. Where do you get these really stupid counterfactual arguments?

Your arguments are even more ridiculous. Taxation is a product of capitalism. How else they going to pay debt incurred by capitalism? I'll be waiting for your reply.lol
Government contracting is not really capitalism. You wouldn't know that if you lived around Washington DC which I did for about a decade. There are a lot of companies that are there because they are looking at one client do US government. But that's kind of a quasi appendage to capitalism. Government contracting is really more akin to mercantilism than it is capitalism. It is very lucrative but of course all Mercantilism is very lucrative to the people who are connected.

What the heck does this have to do with Slavery via debt? WOW! I think this guy likes having conversations with himself. He avoids my points and tries to derail the conversation.

Government contracting is still CAPITALISM. Crooked Capitalism but still capitalism. Capitalism is driven by greed so corrupt capitalism is a biproduct.....

Voting for a welfare state superimposed on a capitalist system is pretty common. Our skinny Scandinavian. They're sick and tired of being called socialists. They are very proud of their capitalist system but as a voting public they have voted for a large welfare state over the top of it.
I take it that's a yes? LMAO!!! Therefore you use a state given money via socialisms into a capitalist system, as a example of capitalisms? LMAO!! Give me free money! I'll turn my backyard into a garden of eden!!!


Nobody suggested anything remotely similar to that. The various homestead acts in various states had nothing to do with stealing anything from anybody.

Your argument was socialist cannot steal back land because its only worth something because the capitalist built value onto it, and thats a nonsense argument.

America invaded Grenada because they took an entire college full of students hostage.
The communists?

Its all about Imperialism 101. If a country took an entire college full of students hostage, you think America would be swift to wage war today? YA RIGHT!

That wasn't why they invaded. They were worried about the communists seizing their capitalist assets.N As did the Venezuelans and the Cubans

No more or less than any of the slaves who received a share that was indistinguishable from hers.
Therefore the answer is no. She didn't pay anything for it. And you did say the land wasn't divided evenly, and that explains why you received a large parcel of land.

I know exactly how to say that if that's what I meant, and I choose not to. So I would recommend you reread my comment.
I did reread it!

You said"You really know nothing about real property at all. The tax on farmland is negligible particularly in rural southern states.

Again are you saying you paid no taxes???

Of course they were giving free property. Where on earth are you getting the inference that they were not given free property.

You said: Opportunities for emancipated slaves were largely speculative given that there was no track record for this kind of thing.

Speculative is not the same as "of course they were given free property".

As farmland goes, this was rich bottom-land
, very valuable. It was excellent for growing things like cotton or soy beans or any other number of things. I expect that many people sold their 40 acres and use the proceeds to go to places like Detroit or Chicago and live whatever lives they chose to live.

OR they could have stayed there. Grew more than what they needed, bought even more slaves to grow even more stuff and voila. Capitalism at work. More slaves/workers, more profit.
That is really an extremely stupid comment. If you actually believe that you are not nearly as intelligent as I have given you credit for being. Capitalism is a completely voluntary system and in a voluntary system people are free to do with their possessions anything they like including give it away.

Whats stupid is you praise capitalism because you were given wealth FOR FREE!!! There is NOTHING voluntary about capitalism.
I inherited exactly zero of that wealth. When my grandmother died the older generation (my mothers five older half brothers) petitioned to sell the farm, and if memory serves, I think she got $25,000. She was subsequently diagnosed with cancer and doctor bills exceeded that amount many, many times over.
$25,000 in those days was HUGE money. I'm sure your uncles still have connections you can access.


Here in America if you're not making your way through burglary or robbery you're a capitalist.
AGAIN? What does this have to do with what I stated???

Your a capitalist if you have money to invest, regardless of whether you stole it or sold drugs for it.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Rome gave rise to capitalism? ROTFLOL!!!! EVERYTHING was owned by the Kings, his relatives, friends and allies! And the public was heavily taxed. How is that capitalism?

Eventually his allies(rich nobles) assassinated Cesare, now THATS capitalist greed....




People that have ALOT of money yes. The rest served these people with old money and did unethical things.



Yes.


WHAT???? They still have slave(sweat) shops today and have had them for decades! Big corporations in South America and now China! You lost your case long ago!


Your arguments are even more ridiculous. Taxation is a product of capitalism. How else they going to pay debt incurred by capitalism? I'll be waiting for your reply.lol


What the heck does this have to do with Slavery via debt? WOW! I think this guy likes having conversations with himself. He avoids my points and tries to derail the conversation.

Government contracting is still CAPITALISM. Crooked Capitalism but still capitalism. Capitalism is driven by greed so corrupt capitalism is a biproduct.....


I take it that's a yes? LMAO!!! Therefore you use a state given money via socialisms into a capitalist system, as a example of capitalisms? LMAO!! Give me free money! I'll turn my backyard into a garden of eden!!!




Your argument was socialist cannot steal back land because its only worth something because the capitalist built value onto it, and thats a nonsense argument.


The communists?

Its all about Imperialism 101. If a country took an entire college full of students hostage, you think America would be swift to wage war today? YA RIGHT!

That wasn't why they invaded. They were worried about the communists seizing their capitalist assets.N As did the Venezuelans and the Cubans


Therefore the answer is no. She didn't pay anything for it. And you did say the land wasn't divided evenly, and that explains why you received a large parcel of land.


I did reread it!

You said"You really know nothing about real property at all. The tax on farmland is negligible particularly in rural southern states.

Again are you saying you paid no taxes???



You said: Opportunities for emancipated slaves were largely speculative given that there was no track record for this kind of thing.

Speculative is not the same as "of course they were given free property".



OR they could have stayed there. Grew more than what they needed, bought even more slaves to grow even more stuff and voila. Capitalism at work. More slaves/workers, more profit.


Whats stupid is you praise capitalism because you were given wealth FOR FREE!!! There is NOTHING voluntary about capitalism.

$25,000 in those days was HUGE money. I'm sure your uncles still have connections you can access.



AGAIN? What does this have to do with what I stated???

Your a capitalist if you have money to invest, regardless of whether you stole it or sold drugs for it.
Or earned it whichbis something you prefer not to do
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
Everyone is.

Not everyone is. You are not in touch with reality for most working class.
Obviously he didn't have money. He bought a $350. 1970 Chevrolet pick up. His partner bugged out on him and helping him start his new business became my summer job while I was in college.

AHHHH he had help! I still dont believe your story. I would imagine there was no expensive cancer treatment back then,
I assure you that there was nothing luxurious about mowing lawns all day, bogging down to the axles in the dump when we were unloading the grass clippings at dusk, going off the clock for an hour for dinner and then loading up the truck again to landscape of McDonald's Drive Thru that we couldn't start until midnight, and wouldn't finish until about 10:30 the next morning. All of this in a 35 hour day that started at 6 o'clock the previous morning. I'm talking about starting to load the trucks at 6 o'clock not getting up at 6 o'clock. You see that's called human capital. More commonly it's called sweat equity. And the wonderful thing is everybody has sweat, so everybody can do it.

I meant the luxury of quitting their jobs and starting a business. try to keep up.

Actually most people working paycheck to paycheck don't have that much brass. My brother started with absolutely nothing.\

brass???? I must also note it was easier in those days. The American dream died long ago.

The only people I know that started with nothing and are rich(not upper middle class) did something unethical. And thats a fact.

If you mean to say that most people don't have enough brass to start their own business I would have to agree with that. But I think you mean that most people don't have enough money, and my brother didn't have any money.

If people are living paycheck to paycheck, how are you going to start a business?LOL You are void of reality.
Me and my mother and brother want? It's one thing that you want to ridicule my family, but normally you give the grounds for the ridicule.

Im not ridiculing anyone. Just pointing out, you are only familiar with the financial situation of your family, and not the average joe.

Was JP Morgan a capitalist? He never borrowed money.
A capitalist doesn't borrow money. A capitalist lends and invests money. The middle class laborers are not capitalists. they just work in a capitalist system.

My luxuries? I have a question for you assuming you drive an automobile, what year model is that car?
Just sold my Toyota 4 runner and have a Tacoma. Why?


Can you give an example of a working class person but I've made money "off the backs of."
The entire system is dependent on taxes and surcharges. That's how they make profit. Name a capitalist company that doesnt make money off the backs of the tax payer consumer?

If capitalism were dandy, they wouldn't own slaves. Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange of goods and services. The slave is not doing anything voluntarily. You seem to have a hard time resisting getting it exactly backwards.

You have a hard time understanding the regular Joe hates his job and cant quit. Its not voluntary. Its obligatory.

Expecting you to actually read history is obviously a bridge too far. So I'll mention this book for the benefit of anyone who might be reading this thread who would actually deign to read history, which you have proven in this thread you were absolutely determined never to do "Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul." If the day ever comes that you actually do deign to read history, you will know that you were wrong. Between now and then I suppose you will just content yourself with your delusions that you know what you're talking about.


HUh? I'd like to think of myself as a self taught historian, thus have read MUCH about history. YOU?
Obviously the Indians have not been wiped out. My great grandmother was Cherokee Indian.

Then you ADMIT it was Europe that caused Indian genocide. Yes or No! But hey! Your Momma got free land, so all is forgiven and those Europeans are dandy!!(note sarcasm).
Innocent of what? The extinction event that you dreamt up in your prior comment?
I have proof. You?


Of course you do, that's where you learned to hate America. Don't let the fact that he's a liar dampen your enthusiasm. By all means, think everything you've always thought, believe everything you've always believed, and you can happily live in your box of mirrors until the day that you die, completely unperturbed by the terrible experience of expanding your mind. I mean, if you did that you might actually have to change some of your opinions, and we can't have that!
I would like to respond to that but I know it would be a watse of my time. I will only respond by saying that is YOUR opinion and nothing more.

I always change my opinions, when I sense Im wrong. That doesn't happen when I debate you.LOL

Nothing is more obvious than the fact that you have not studied a "fair share" of history.

Test me.
You can only make that deluded comment because you have not read history. You may have read Howard Zinn, that's not history.
Ive read a heck of a lot more than Zinn.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
I've never run into a wealthy American Indian who stayed on their socialist reservation. No matter how many millions their casinos rake in, all the money seems to be stolen by the socialist overlords at the top.

You mean after all that free land, there are no wealthy Native land owners you know in your area?
I don't know, can you get a Maserati on the government dole?

Oh yes. The more money you make for the government, the more they give you for your servitude and loyalty.
Why am I suspicious that all the Native American Indians didn't get together and produce this video?

Did you even watch the video?lol Are you calling him a liar?
The backstory of every enterprise is fact specific, and unique to that particular enterprise.

Wrong. It all started the same way. Via debt !!
So near as I can tell (if Venezuela is in the indication) Socialism doesn't seem to be supported by anything. And certainly Joe Biden seemed to be inspired by that when he was paying people more money to stay home and go to work.

Try again. People do work in Venezuela. The reason they implemented socialist programs is due to the CAPITALIST collapse of their economy. When the oil prices dropped and they couldn't pay their capitalist debtors. They had to devalue their currency. Seems like I know more about history than you.
I'd be a lot happier if our taxes were more similar to the way they were when the constitution was written.

Knock yourself out. Pay taxes if that makes you happy. :)
That's fine. But if you rent a car and pay a rental fee, why wouldn't you pay a fee when you rent money? I guess people with excess capital could stop renting out their money, and just blow it on JetSki's and skydiving, but I failed to see how that would improve anything.
The reason people have top "rent anything" is because everything is expensive and over priced.

Yes, from one of the top 10 accounting schools on planet earth. I don't mean to sound impertinent but facts are facts.

There you go! He went to the top 10 accounting schools on earth, He is a 1% !!!

i WILL REPEAT.

You only been taught what you need to know to serve the capitalists. It is clear your perception of economics is not supported by reality. Just your capitalist books and your own interests.

Just like economists know the system is corrupt but play along because it puts money in their pockets.

Given the personal services is all that someone starting out generally has to offer, and people without money don't hire you for any purpose, I supposed to axiomatic that the people you serve will be capitalists. Most people call that starting out.

Gibberish
It's just dumb luck that whenever the Chicago school of economics approach is employed it works 100% of the time. But by all means don't let evidence play any role in your judgments about economics.

Gibberish
So I have to ask myself do I want to get my economics from a concentration camp thin, starving Venezuelan or from Adam Smith and Art Laffer in a country where even our homeless people are fat.

A country whose main success was land thievery and accumulated debt. Give Venezuela 17 trillion dollars in credit and their kids will be fat too, especially if they are eating McDonalds with their welfare checks!!

If you understood what I wrote you would also understand that from an accounting perspective whether we call something wages or profit depends entirely on how the enterprise is organized. There is absolutely no economic difference. There is only a difference in accounting nomenclature.

Whether there is no economic difference in your economic books is irrelevant. They shouldn't be classified as the same thing. One is money earned, the other is given to you because the system says you can take it from the public.
If someone tries to run a company without working, it won't be a company for long, I assure you.

Nonsense. All you need is money to pay a guy you trust and laborers and you dont have to do any "real work". You also have to be strong enough to kick his butt if he tries to steal from you. Or hire people that will.
Which may or may not offset the losses incurred from an investment. Investment returns and losses is a bit of a different category.

Only the small investors take losses. Remember, when gambling, the house ALWAYS wins......When big investors lose, its usually never their own money.
Since you have your psychic crystal ball all shined up, how do I feel about the best interests of the American economy as a whole? And more specifically the question about what road is most likely to provide each and every American with the greatest possibility of success, and the country as a whole with the greatest living standard, the greatest amount of wealth available for charity, and the greatest amount of investment capital to ensure a brighter tomorrow. Don't you think that's an interesting question? What does your psychic crystal ball say I think about that? I mean, now that we know you have that psychic crystal ball, you can just enter comments for both of us, which would save me a lot of time.

The same vehicle that serves your interests. Capitalism I would assume. What do I win!!
Before you go there, perhaps you should reflect on what I commented on, immediately above.

Nope. It is clear I am correct in my assessment.
A common thread for people who want to commandeer everyone else's property in the name of "the people."
For the record? I wouldn't have to commandeer your business. I would just make it utterly useless.lol
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Yes you did! Lets recap.

I said" The richest elitists in this world ALL have old money from war and slavery. The richest elites in the world run the banks and own all the large parcels of land."

You said"Obviously that is not true. I just gave a personal example from my mother's family they got their 3000 acre farm by means of homesteading. There was nothing about them that was elitist."

What did I say that was "not true"?
Your entire statement was completely false can you attributed at least half of it to me. I deny every part of it, and I have never affirmed any part of it. I have never said my mother has 3000 acres. Here is your statement:

"The richest elites are bankers and you claim thats not true because your mom has 3000 acres? LMAO"​

The richest man in the world is Elon Musk and he's not a banker never has been. So clearly you have made a false attribution to me, and your basic claim is dispositively false. So given every part of your statement is false and your attribution to me is false I will now thank you to withdraw the statement. You can make any assertion you want to on your own, but leave me out of it!
AHHHH so your wealth is due to socialist giveaway!!! You CERTAINLY didn't earn 3000 acres.
You obviously don't understand what a homestead is. It's a contract with the entity offering the homestead. They set the terms and you either agree to abide by the terms or they get the land back. That makes this part of contract law which is no different than if you paid someone to remodel your bathroom, and demanded your money back when they refused to keep the agreement by remodeling your bathroom.
You got free land.
I didn't get anything. And those who did get some thing paid for it with sweat equity. And given that no one in my mothers generation is still alive it's fair to say that no living person got anything free or however you want to characterize it.
Even the communist cronies got free land.
That sounds about right as did the Nazis.
And loved communism for it.
We agree on this point but you seem to fail to understand that communism is just Socialism in the fast lane.
Therefore you love capitalism for it, although it wasn't capitalism that gave you free land.
The land was not free it was contracted for. If you didn't meet the terms of the homestead agreement you didn't get anything. I got no part of this, so I didn't get anything. No benefit of any kind survived to anybody in my generation.
It wasn't theirs to give away in the first place.
France sold that land to the United States for $10 million just like Russia sold the United States Alaska for whatever price they put on that. You can fact check that number, but I expect I got that right.
HUH? Land is wealth. You were given FREE LAND! FREE Wealth!
Nothing was transferred for free. A homestead is a contract which is something of value for something else of value. In the case of a homestead the thing of value is the development of all of the land being homesteaded such that it is turned into a thriving economy which in turn generates a tax base for the government.
Really? Im looking for some barren lake front property for free. You'd think according to you it would be worth nothing, but not to the sellers.lol
That is obviously not the point of the illustration. The point of the illustration is there's a big difference between the value of developed land and undeveloped land. If a developer buys a piece of raw land and spends a bunch of money and effort getting it zoned for a higher use, and then installs a bunch of sewers and streets, storm drains, sewer lines, an electrical power connections, that's a lot more valuable than it was as raw land. The same idea applies to raw land versus farmland. But if you're looking for home stead of land you might try this link.


Obviously as they begin to discuss the conditions that this land is available it becomes apparent that the use of the word "free" is very colloquial, and not at all literal.
Ya give me some free land with a gold mine or some oil, and I will get back to you. :)
At the federal level, land with mineral light rights is typically leased to companies that will develop those assets. So for example if an oil company finds that there is a potentially productive geologic formation under an Indian reservation they need to clear the idea of leasing it with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and then negotiate with the tribe if approved. If they can come to terms a deal struck, and the asset can be developed to the benefit of everyone involved.
It is clear you do not.
No my friend, if I didn't know what I was talking about the United States would not have the largest economy in the world. That's the thing about being right, it's evident to everyone because it's self vindicating.
Lets agree to disagree.
Socialists will not consider evidence so you've apparently chosen Socialism over truth. I expected this but I thought it's important to point out.
Did you even read my points, other than going off topic?
Apparently you're either unaware or have forgotten what your point was, but my comment dispatces it dispositively.
Are you saying Rome Initially didnt have slaves? ROTFLOL!!! Stick to accounting please!
If you would read what I actually write, you wouldn't be making all of these misattributions.
Therefore you would not want to pay cheaper for the eggs?
If you can tell me where I can acquire eggs cheaper in the quantity I can consume, without prohibitive cartage cost, I'll definitely buy those eggs.
You'd rather pay more so the egg dealer can lead a life of luxury? Your arguments are laughable,.
I have no doubt that there are shareholders of Aldi's that are living a life of luxury. If anyone can trace any of that opulence to my purchasing eggs $.85 a dozen I will eat my hat. It is your argument that is laughable my friend.
But many go into business to make unreasonable profit(due to greed), and you seem to support that.lol
I am delighted when someone makes a profit that you find "unreasonable" because your whole argument is absolutely insane. 10 people go in the business of one sort or another, and one of them survives. Why is that? Because relative to other things that people could spend their time doing, running your own business is incredibly risky. If the potential return were any less, no one would do it, and therefore no one would have any eggs.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
Your entire statement was completely false can you attributed at least half of it to me. I deny every part of it, and I have never affirmed any part of it. I have never said my mother has 3000 acres. Here is your statement:

"The richest elites are bankers and you claim thats not true because your mom has 3000 acres? LMAO"​

I QUOTED YOU! Your mother's family got 3,000 Acres.
by means of homesteading,. Its right there!

Your story is starting to fall apaart.lol


The richest man in the world is Elon Musk and he's not a banker never has been. So clearly you have made a false attribution to me, and your basic claim is dispositively false. So given every part of your statement is false and your attribution to me is false I will now thank you to withdraw the statement. You can make any assertion you want to on your own, but leave me out of it!

On paper? Yes, not in reality. There are people that would make Gates and Musk look like peasants. With trillions of dollars in hidden dirty money.

Where do you think the multi trillions of dollars paid to the Federal Reserve in interest have gone? To Musk? LMAO!

You obviously don't understand what a homestead is. It's a contract with the entity offering the homestead. They set the terms and you either agree to abide by the terms or they get the land back. That makes this part of contract law which is no different than if you paid someone to remodel your bathroom, and demanded your money back when they refused to keep the agreement by remodeling your bathroom.
I do understand. I told you there was too much land and not enough slaves so they gave people more incentive. You still got land for free. And I bet you most of that homesteading included slaves.


I didn't get anything. And those who did get some thing paid for it with sweat equity. And given that no one in my mothers generation is still alive it's fair to say that no living person got anything free or however you want to characterize it.

Sweat equity? You know how much someone would have to sweat to get 3000 acres? It wouldnt be on his sweat alone. I guarantee you that.
We agree on this point but you seem to fail to understand that communism is just Socialism in the fast lane.

Communism is proving to be capitalism in the fast lane. It is clear again, you do not know the meaning of socialism(rule of the people).
The land was not free it was contracted for. If you didn't meet the terms of the homestead agreement you didn't get anything. I got no part of this, so I didn't get anything. No benefit of any kind survived to anybody in my generation.

Can you imagine if I worked for a factory and then they gave me the factory to own? Capitalism does not work that way. You did not benefit from capitalism. You benefitted from Feudalism.

France sold that land to the United States for $10 million just like Russia sold the United States Alaska for whatever price they put on that. You can fact check that number, but I expect I got that right.

And how much did France pay the Indians they stole it from? I'd imagine those Natives were homesteading on that land for centuries.
Nothing was transferred for free. A homestead is a contract which is something of value for something else of value. In the case of a homestead the thing of value is the development of all of the land being homesteaded such that it is turned into a thriving economy which in turn generates a tax base for the government.

Again. Look at my example of working for a factory above.
That is obviously not the point of the illustration. The point of the illustration is there's a big difference between the value of developed land and undeveloped land. If a developer buys a piece of raw land and spends a bunch of money and effort getting it zoned for a higher use, and then installs a bunch of sewers and streets, storm drains, sewer lines, an electrical power connections, that's a lot more valuable than it was as raw land. The same idea applies to raw land versus farmland. But if you're looking for home stead of land you might try this link.
Now if the developer inherited the money he paid it off. If he made the money of the backs of slaves and workers, it was THEIR labor that paid for the upgrades. Yet the Capitalist owns it and takes credit for it.


Obviously as they begin to discuss the conditions that this land is available it becomes apparent that the use of the word "free" is very colloquial, and not at all literal.

1 word. Feudalism.

And what happens after 5 years? Your contract is up and you keep that land? Now THAT is a socialist mortgage!

I believe sharecropping is more popular than homesteading these days.
At the federal level, land with mineral light rights is typically leased to companies that will develop those assets. So for example if an oil company finds that there is a potentially productive geologic formation under an Indian reservation they need to clear the idea of leasing it with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and then negotiate with the tribe if approved. If they can come to terms a deal struck, and the asset can be developed to the benefit of everyone involved.

Then you understand land is wealth??? :)
No my friend, if I didn't know what I was talking about the United States would not have the largest economy in the world. That's the thing about being right, it's evident to everyone because it's self vindicating.

Its due to European Elites moving their huge gold reserves to the USA after world war II. Yup. You dont know what your talking about. They decided to invest in the only economy left standing due to its geographic position. The USA.
Apparently you're either unaware or have forgotten what your point was, but my comment dispatces it dispositively.

Gibberish
If you would read what I actually write, you wouldn't be making all of these misattributions.

Its funny how I feel the same way about you.
If you can tell me where I can acquire eggs cheaper in the quantity I can consume, without prohibitive cartage cost, I'll definitely buy those eggs.

Ummm how about privately, and tax free?

I have no doubt that there are shareholders of Aldi's that are living a life of luxury. If anyone can trace any of that opulence to my purchasing eggs $.85 a dozen I will eat my hat. It is your argument that is laughable my friend.

How else can they afford luxury if they are not overcharging for the product, why? Because the capitalist system says they can.
I am delighted when someone makes a profit that you find "unreasonable" because your whole argument is absolutely insane. 10 people go in the business of one sort or another, and one of them survives. Why is that? Because relative to other things that people could spend their time doing, running your own business is incredibly risky. If the potential return were any less, no one would do it, and therefore no one would have any eggs.
Ohhhh you are delighted when someone overcharges for their product and makes a profit for doing absolutely nothing, other than having capital??? Why? Most likely because that is how you make your living.lol

Its only risky if you go in over your head. Back in the day people didnt open up businesses unless they had LOTS of capital.

The reason it is risky is because capitalism creates an unstable economy.

So no one who work for an honest wage? LMAO!!

The funny thing is you believe your winning this debate. I KNOW I am more in tune with the average Joe.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You mean after all that free land, there are no wealthy Native land owners you know in your area?
I live in Illinois, and I expect a lot of the landowners that I know were born in Illinois, so that would make them all natives. I wasn't born in Illinois, so if I owned land in Illinois I would not be a native landowner. Of course, I would be a Native American land owner because I was born in America.
Oh yes. The more money you make for the government, the more they give you for your servitude and loyalty.
The government is one socialist euphemistically call "the people."
Did you even watch the video?lol Are you calling him a liar?
So you're changing the subject to avoid answering my question, the logical inference of which is that the answer is no.
Wrong. It all started the same way. Via debt !!
That is simply not true. Do you think Michael Jordan took out a loan to become a professional basketball player? How many companies do you suppose he sits on the boared of today?
Try again. People do work in Venezuela.
The problem is, owing to their socialist utopia they're not eating. That was one of the downsides to the Nazi concentration camps too.
The reason they implemented socialist programs is due to the CAPITALIST collapse of their economy.
When the company was capitalist it was the richest country per capita in Central and South America. It went from fabulous wealth to starvation through a single adjustment from capitalism to Socialism.
When the oil prices dropped and they couldn't pay their capitalist debtors.
Are you talking about the debt that the Socialist leadership incurred to spirit away in the offshore accounts so that they can pillage the assets of the country before the Venezuelan people could just waste the money on food and shelter. So much money to steal (if you're a socialist leader) and so little time to steal it.
They had to devalue their currency. Seems like I know more about history than you.
Actually it seems like you don't know much about the world at all. Any part of it, current events, history, economics, you name it you get 100% of it wrong.
Knock yourself out. Pay taxes if that makes you happy. :)
Originally taxes were only levied on income when we were fighting a war.
The reason people have top "rent anything" is because everything is expensive and over priced.
Right you want people to give you their money, you're a socialist. Of course "give" to socialist means fork over your money or you'll be shot. You know, like the Romanoffs?
There you go! He went to the top 10 accounting schools on earth, He is a 1% !!!
One percent of what? Hint, this is not a trick question you don't have to have a degree in accounting to answer it.
You only been taught what you need to know to serve the capitalists. It is clear your perception of economics is not supported by reality. Just your capitalist books and your own interests.
A truly unintentionally hysterical comment.
Just like economists know the system is corrupt but play along because it puts money in their pockets.
Well, if you're talking about Robert Reich I guess I'd have to agree.
Gibberish

Gibberish
Oh, the gift that God could give us, to see ourselves as others see us…
A country whose main success was land thievery and accumulated debt.
A country that more people want to migrate to than any other place on earth and everyone in the world agrees it has the most valuable currency. But again don't let your mind get confused by anything is mundine as evidence.
Give Venezuela 17 trillion dollars in credit and their kids will be fat too, especially if they are eating McDonalds with their welfare checks!!
In Socialism welfare checks are the only kind.
Whether there is no economic difference in your economic books is irrelevant.
There is no economic difference in reality! You either understand this or you're a complete economic illiterate.
They shouldn't be classified as the same thing.
They're classified differently they are identical.
One is money earned, the other is given to you because the system says you can take it from the public.
The fact that you don't appreciate what a galactically idiotic statement that is is the crux of the problem.
Nonsense. All you need is money to pay a guy you trust and laborers and you dont have to do any "real work".
If running a country is not "real work," and if it is so lead pipe cinch profitable why isn't everyone doing it? You're employing the thinking capacity of a two-year-old in this discussion.
You also have to be strong enough to kick his butt if he tries to steal from you. Or hire people that will.
Do they not have a police function in socialist countries as you understand them?
Only the small investors take losses. Remember, when gambling, the house ALWAYS wins......When big investors lose, its usually never their own money.
Do you believe this stuff or are you pulling us on like a sock?
The same vehicle that serves your interests. Capitalism I would assume. What do I win!!
What serves the interests of the greatest possible number of people, from the richest of the rich, to the poorest of the poor?
Nope. It is clear I am correct in my assessment.
Of course! Whatever made me think that you would be willing to reflect on anything. What is clear is that you're never going to learn anything that you don't already think you know.
For the record? I wouldn't have to commandeer your business. I would just make it utterly useless.lol
And there's a word for that it's called skulduggery.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I QUOTED YOU!
You did nothing of the kind.
Your mother's family got 3,000 Acres.
Her lineal ancestors homesteaded 3000 acres during the Lincoln Administration. How old do you suppose my mother was during the Lincoln Administration? Do you speak English… Can you do math? Are you suffering from a major brain injury?
by means of homesteading,. Its right there!
You do understand that my mother was not her own great grandparents right.
Your story is starting to fall apaart.lol
The thing that's falling apart is your cognitive acuity.
On paper? Yes, not in reality. There are people that would make Gates and Musk look like peasants.
I'm sorry, there's a level of absurdity that is so off the charts that I'm just simply not willing to continue down that road. Thanks for your participation.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
I live in Illinois, and I expect a lot of the landowners that I know were born in Illinois, so that would make them all natives. I wasn't born in Illinois, so if I owned land in Illinois I would not be a native landowner. Of course, I would be a Native American land owner because I was born in America.

You sure you not a politician? You seem to be avoiding the question!!

The government is one socialist euphemistically call "the people."

Gibberish.
So you're changing the subject to avoid answering my question, the logical inference of which is that the answer is no.
The video IS on subject! Native Indians in America. Just tell the truth, you didnt watch it, or are afraid to comment on it, because it destroys your position.

That is simply not true. Do you think Michael Jordan took out a loan to become a professional basketball player? How many companies do you suppose he sits on the boared of today?

You know how expensive it is to be in sports? Not sure about basketball but in hockey for example? You have to INVEST ALOT of money for your kids to pursue, sports, entertainment, or pretty much any large salary.

Maybe its cheaper for basketball players for lack of really tall players?lol What is it? Less than 1% are over 6 and a half feet? And most tall people are not agile.

But we are talking about capitalism and banking.

The problem is, owing to their socialist utopia they're not eating. That was one of the downsides to the Nazi concentration camps too.

Gibberish
When the company was capitalist it was the richest country per capita in Central and South America. It went from fabulous wealth to starvation through a single adjustment from capitalism to Socialism.

It was rich when it found oil. Then over spent(The us backed dictator stole) because of their new found wealth, and then when oil prices dropped, they couldnt pay their capitalist debtors, and had to devalue their currency. THEN after the collapse they instituted socialist programs. You couldnt be further from the truth.

Are you talking about the debt that the Socialist leadership incurred to spirit away in the offshore accounts so that they can pillage the assets of the country before the Venezuelan people could just waste the money on food and shelter. So much money to steal (if you're a socialist leader) and so little time to steal it.
Are you talking about the puppet dictator installed by the west and all the puppet dictators it supports world wide to steal for the west?

Actually it seems like you don't know much about the world at all. Any part of it, current events, history, economics, you name it you get 100% of it wrong.
Look in the mirror and say it again.lol
Originally taxes were only levied on income when we were fighting a war.
Origionally?LOL which country! Taxes were collected for MANY things, they even charge people death taxes and STOLE lots of land in the process! and there were taxes prior to income tax! Income taxes were introduced to pay the debt incurred via the Federal; Reserve.

Question! Does your accounting involve tax accounting? That can explain why you justify taxes. Pathetic!

Right you want people to give you their money, you're a socialist. Of course "give" to socialist means fork over your money or you'll be shot. You know, like the Romanoffs?

Show me where I said I want people to give me money. Next!
One percent of what? Hint, this is not a trick question you don't have to have a degree in accounting to answer it.

Gibberish. Tell me. How did you afford to go to the top 10 accounting schools in the world from such humble beginnings? :)
Well, if you're talking about Robert Reich I guess I'd have to agree.

ALL of them. They know how to manipulate the system. Thus dont point out its many flaws.
A country that more people want to migrate to than any other place on earth and everyone in the world agrees it has the most valuable currency. But again don't let your mind get confused by anything is mundine as evidence.
Of course! All due to Europe's elites moving their gold reserves to America after the war, and thus all the opportunities. But all those opportunities and higher standard of life come at a high cost.

And the reason they left their 3rd world countries is because there are no jobs there because the west pillages their wealth and resources for next to nothing!


In Socialism welfare checks are the only kind.

Okay give Venezuela 17 trillion dollars in welfare checks and it will look like paradise. Babylon was rumored to be one of the wealthiest places in the world where everyone flocked to(not by choice). They used to impose high taxes on the slave colonies(3rd world countries) to support their lives of luxury and were hated world wide!
There is no economic difference in reality! You either understand this or you're a complete economic illiterate.

They're classified differently they are identical.

They are NOT identical even though the capitalist like to tell people they are. One is via sweat, one is via investment and no sweat.
If running a country is not "real work," and if it is so lead pipe cinch profitable why isn't everyone doing it? You're employing the thinking capacity of a two-year-old in this discussion.
Did you just ask why everyone is not running a country? And you talk about galactic idiocy? WOW!!

Speaking from personal experience, being a leader takes effort, but no where near the effort of the laborer's. There are so many perks of being a leader. But it can be stressful for 2 reasons. 1) when your no longer able to afford your life of luxury 2) In my case, trying to keep all my followers from disputes. It's close to impossible to make everyone happy, no mater how hard you try....
Do they not have a police function in socialist countries as you understand them?

They do but we are talking about capitalism not socialism. Cops wouldn't get involved. The courts would and courts cost money. In socialism courts would be affordable.
Do you believe this stuff or are you pulling us on like a sock?

Not only do I believe it, I know it.
What serves the interests of the greatest possible number of people, from the richest of the rich, to the poorest of the poor?

Religion? :p
And there's a word for that it's called skulduggery.
If I were a socialist? I wouldn't have to take away anyone's business. I'd set up shop right next to you, undercut you and you'd go bankrupt. Isn't that competition? You wouldn't be able to compete with the government. Regardless of all the lies you heard from capitalists.

In your case all I would do is make the Federal reserve obsolete, and your business would crumble.
 
Top