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.
Listen I understand you want to support your own interest over the interest of the masses. I understand all too well greed and selfishness.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.