People of Color Win Under Republicans!

[psiberzerker]

Not at all I'm against most government intrusions into the markets.

Again, that's what capitalist governments do. They created the markets in the first place. Without the government, there wouldn't be corporate markets.

 

[psiberzerker]

You're conflating socialism with capitalism again.

Your entire schtick is conflating everything you don't like, including the neboulous "Injustice" with "Socialism."

No capitalism, no market. Period.

You don't have any argument that doesn't inevitably boil down to "Socialists! Socialists everywhere!" Do you?

 

[KeithD]

I haven't found BotanyBoy to have any argument that holds any water. He's just a parasitic drone trolling here for the amusement of trolling.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your entire schtick is conflating everything you don't like, including the neboulous "Injustice" with "Socialism."

Nope....just the advocation of government ownership/control/administration over the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

Just like all the textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias you routinely reject say it is.

No capitalism, no market. Period.

I'm sorry that's just not true and saying "period" after already putting one on the end of your sentence doesn't make it true.

You DESPERATELY need to read the definition of capitalism....I'll even link it again.

Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

You don't have any argument that doesn't inevitably boil down to "Socialists! Socialists everywhere!" Do you?

Got plenty.

But you being a huge advocate of state authority to engage in socialistic activities then pretending it's capitalism/anarchy usually leads to me posting the definitions and you coming unglued over it until you ignore them again.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I haven't found BotanyBoy to have any argument that holds any water. He's just a parasitic drone trolling here for the amusement of trolling.

Says the chicken shit who's fucking TERRIFIED to engage me beyond generic shit talk from the iggy bunker lol.

Stay scared little man.

 

[psiberzerker]

by investments that are determined by private decision

Which is why Market manipulation is crucial to HOW capitalism works. Without maintaining the markets that underpin the economy, capitalism isn't capable of maintaining that economy.

But you being a huge advocate of state authority to engage in socialistic.

And this is how you prove that you're capable of an argument, that doesn't ultimately boil down to calling "Socialism!"

You literally have no other argument. you only know how to argue with a Socialist, (Or you seem to think you can even do that) so you have it hardwired in by now that for you to "Win" you have to prove that's a socialist.

All you have is a hammer, everyone else is a sickle. Until you can present an argument that isn't propped up by "SOCIALIST!"

 

[psiberzerker]

It gets boring pretty quick.

Monarchy: No market.

Socialism: No market without capitalism.

Theocracy: No market.

Communism: No Markets (No private wealth to invest in Markets.)

Oligarchy: No markets without capitalist Oligarchs (We're looking at a capitalist Oligarchy now.)

Anarchy: No markets.

There were no international markets, before Captialism, because it had to invent them, for it to function according to it's Means. Market manipulation is crucial to capitalism. Show one capitalist system without markets. (And without screaming socialism when backed into a corner.) or before the establishment of said markets.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which is why Market manipulation is crucial to HOW capitalism works. Without maintaining the markets that underpin the economy, capitalism isn't capable of maintaining that economy.

Market manipulation by the government ( government administration over the distribution of goods and services) is definitively not capitalism.

And this is how you prove that you're capable of an argument, that doesn't ultimately boil down to calling "Socialism!"

By agreeing that the definition of capitalism isn't really true and that government administration over the markets (distribution of goods and services) is actually capitalism despite that being the definition of socialism???

LOL no....that's not how I prove I'm capable of an argument that doesn't ultimately boil down to calling "socialism". That's you trying to be manipulative and get me into buying your delusions.

It gets boring pretty quick.

Monarchy: No market.

Socialism: No market without capitalism.

Theocracy: No market.

Communism: No Markets (No private wealth to invest in Markets.)

Oligarchy: No markets without capitalist Oligarchs (We're looking at a capitalist Oligarchy now.)

Anarchy: No markets.

Who's ass did you pull that out of??? some HS failures??

Here let me un-fuck that load of bullshit for you.

Monarchy: Monarch owns the markets generally, but not always, monarchism isn't an economic system.

Socialism: government control/administration of markets.

Theocracy: God (clergy) runs the country.

Communism: No Markets, government provides everything via magic!

Oligarchy: small group of people running the country.

Anarchy: No government authority.


You desperately need a basic civics/economics class. Or to read a dictionary/encyclopedia sometime at a bare minimum.

Market manipulation is crucial to capitalism. Show one capitalist system without markets. (And without screaming socialism when backed into a corner.) or before the establishment of said markets.

No it's not, it's antithetical to capitalism....you need to read the definition of capitalism sometime.

Being capitalism is defined by free markets (without government manipulation) and private ownership of property and investments made by private decision (no government manipulation) it's going to be hard to show you a capitalist system lacking all the things that define it.

Can you show me a definition of capitalism that includes government control/administration over the distribution of goods and services???

Because we have a word for government administration over the markets (distribution of goods and services)....and it's not capitalism.

No matter how badly you want to pretend it is!

 

[psiberzerker]

Being capitalism is defined by free markets (without government manipulation) and private ownership of property and investments made by private decision (no government manipulation)

It's going to be hard to show you a capitalist system lacking all the things that define it.

You just added, all of that, to the definition you just posted. So yeah, if you redefine the dictionary definition you claim I didn't read to exactly what you're arguing it is, then of course, you can't do it. You can just asspull an excuse for not finding a single real world example that existed.

"Free Market" is a myth. Private Decision doesn't mean no government manipulation. The stock market is a perfect example. That's capitalism, right? Surely wallstreet is capitalism, without the evil spectre of Socialism. Right? That's why Occupy Wall Street, a socialist revolt was against the stock market. Right? Can we at least agree on that for an example so we can discuss this like rational human beings instead of one of acting like the dictionary is the bible, and Socialism is the devil. Otherwise, I'm done wasting my time, and I'm going to bed.

Can you show me a definition of capitalism that includes government control/administration over the distribution of goods and services?

No, because again, if you had actually read my arcument without the S word eccoing in your head, and drowing out all reason, it goes beyond the stub in the dictionary, and into how the Government actually maintains the markets. However, we'll have to talk about economics, and you don't earn an MBA by reading the definition of "Money" in the dictionary.

Because we have a word for government administration over the markets (distribution of goods and services)....and it's not capitalism. No matter how badly you want to pretend it is!

Not my argument. It's not socialism, either. The markets are something within the substrate of the definition, with more detail if you actually read deeper than the Abstract. So, are you ready to discuss market capitalism, or do you want to say Socialism again?

 

[psiberzerker]

Now, look up the Securities Act of 1933. This is basically the laws intended to insure the "Free Market" you're imagining. If you can't read the whole thing, here's a summary:

AKA the "Truth in Securities Act,' it was intended to protect investors from Fraud in the sale of Securities.

That didn't work. Now, read the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Just in case you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a summary:

Corporate Reporting, Proxy Solicitations, Tender Offers, Insider Trading, Registration of Exchanges, Brokerage Firms, and Asociations to prevent corporate fraud of investors, which were allowed by the "Truth in Securities act" of 1933.

They had to protect the capitalist investors from the Corporate Brokerages, who were bleeding them dry. To protect capitalism, and rebuild after it catastrophically failed in 1929. (It took a couple years, and 2 tries to accomplish. Through direct, Government interference.)

Free market capitalism doesn't work, unless the governement steps in to protect the Investors from the Corperations. We tried that, it failed, catastrophically, twice, in the span of 5 years.

You know what pulled us out of this? What saved capitalism from the Crash it caused?

The New Deal.

Socialism.

 

[psiberzerker]

That's how Capitalism, AND Socialism works, here, in America. Together.

Unregulated Capitalism crashes, due to Fraud. Corporate greed.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/about-lawsshtml.html

Merriam Webster isn't an Economist. It's Semantics.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You just added, all of that, to the definition you just posted.

Wrong again....you've just never read the definition of capitalism.

Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

it goes beyond the stub in the dictionary, and into how the Government actually maintains the markets.

Maintain =/= control/administer/manipulate.

However, we'll have to talk about economics, and you don't earn an MBA by reading the definition of "Money" in the dictionary.

You don't get it by pretending "Money" means something else either.

Not my argument.

You just posted this.....did you forget that?

Market manipulation is crucial to capitalism.

It's not socialism, either.

The dictionary/encyclopedia/text books say otherwise.

So, are you ready to discuss market capitalism, or do you want to say Socialism again?

Are you ready to stop pretending capitalism is government ownership and administration over the means of production and the distribution of goods and services?

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's how Capitalism, AND Socialism works, here, in America. Together.

Ok so were at least able to admit the USA is a mixed economy finally.

Unregulated Capitalism crashes, due to Fraud. Corporate greed.

Mmmmmmm no....it's just not nice and fair.

Merriam Webster isn't an Economist. It's Semantics.

You would be HARD pressed to find an economist with any sort of education or job as an economist that disagrees with websters definition though.

 

[psiberzerker]

Are you ready to stop pretending capitalism is government ownership and administration over the means of production and the distribution of goods and services?

I never started.

 

[psiberzerker]

Ok so were at least able to admit the USA is a mixed economy finally.

We're. We, are. Plural. You, and I, discussing this. Not I discuss this, and you call me a socialist. Then post the same definitions you claim I haven't read for the thousandth time. Now, say something about the time that socialism saved the economy from Free Market Capitalism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Free market capitalism doesn't work, unless the governement steps in to protect the Investors from the Corperations. We tried that, it failed, catastrophically, twice, in the span of 5 years.

Wrong.....it works fine, has for eons.

The problem is free market capitalism isn't nice....the wolves prosper and the sheep cry as they run into the wolves den to their own slaughter.

So the government has to protect them from their own stupid....their own poor economic choices.

 

[psiberzerker]

So the government has to protect them from their own stupid....their own poor economic choices.

No, they had to protect them from corporate fraud. Again. Now, say something about the time that Socialism saved America from Free Market Capitalism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I never started.

You keep acting like everything you post disappears....

Market manipulation is crucial to capitalism.

Do you want me to go drag up the other quote where you said government wealth redistribution is capitalism? Because you know I can.

We're. We, are. Plural. You, and I, discussing this. Not I discuss this, and you call me a socialist. Then post the same definitions you claim I haven't read for the thousandth time.

Don't advocate socialism and then BS about the definitions then.

Now, say something about the time that socialism saved the economy from Free Market Capitalism.

It was the beginning of the end.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, they had to protect them from corporate fraud.

Same shit.

 

[psiberzerker]

It was the beginning of the end.

That's all you have to say about The New Deal. You're not going to argue that FDR wasn't a socialist, that he didn't seize the means of production, create jobs with social programs, didn't save America, and wasn't the greatest economic leader we've ever had?

He saved the economy, from free market capitalism, with socialism.

Fine, then explain this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/property

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_(economics)

Now, captain semantic. Show that money and property are means of production, whereas the working class are not.

Then read Marx and Engels.

 

[BotanyBoy]

He saved the economy, from free market capitalism, with socialism.

Yea..temporarally.

And after that initial wave? Downward spiral.......as soon as we run out of other peoples money to spend we're going to Venezuela ourselves quick fast an in a hurry.

Petro dollar goes....someone calls their tab....decides not to loan us anything anymore.....the party will be fuckin' OVER and you're going to need a million bucks to buy a loaf of bread.

Now, captain semantic. Show that money and property are means of production,

Name something that's produced without money and or property........

You can't take a shit without money or property of some kind to get food to produce a turd.

Much less produce goods and services to trade with others.

You know why the wealthy have an easier time making more money? They have lots of money and property.....means of production, when they use it to produce goods/services to trade with others?? They make more money....acquire more property.

whereas the working class are not.

Never said labor isn't.

 

[psiberzerker]

Yea..temporarally.

And after that initial wave?

World War II. When we fought socialism.

 

[psiberzerker]

Name something that's produced without money and or property.

Wheat, pork bellies, fresh water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, horse shoes, hand grenades, friendship bracelets, babies, spears, and bullshit.

You can't take a shit without money or property of some kind to get food to produce a turd.

Not in a capitalist society. We did just fine for hundreds of thousands of years before the advent of money.

Never said labor isn't.

I said the laborers. Not labor, without the laboroers, the people, the proletariat, there is no production. In any society, capitalist, socialist, whatsoever.

Read Marx and Engels yet?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Wheat, pork bellies, fresh water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, horse shoes, hand grenades, friendship bracelets, babies, spears, and bullshit.

All cost money or property to produce/obtain.

Not in a capitalist society. We did just fine for hundreds of thousands of years before the advent of money.

Bartering was proto-capitalism and functions on the exact same principals, the addition of an exchange medium is the only difference and arguably a major advancement out of the stone age.

I said the laborers. Not labor, without the laboroers, the people, the proletariat, there is no production. In any society, capitalist, socialist, whatsoever.

Yes I know....

Definition of labor

4
a : an economic group comprising those who do manual labor or work for wages
b (1) : workers employed in an establishment (2) : workers available for employment
c : the organizations or officials representing groups of workers negotiations between labor and management

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labor

Read Marx and Engels yet?

Like 20 years ago ....read the definition of capitalism yet?

 

[psiberzerker]

All cost money or property to produce/obtain.

Only in a capitalist economy. We had all of these things before there was money, except hand grenades.

Bartering was proto-capitalism and functions on the exact same principals, the addition of an exchange medium is the only difference and arguably a major advancement out of the stone age.

There were no markets, which we both agreed is one of the foundations of a Free market Capitalism.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

One is an ideal, the other are people, with rights.