RE: recent obamacare news

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: recent obamacare news

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: recent obamacare news

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 11:29:33 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

Individualism is a capitalist concept and that's why pure capitalism can never really exist. Whilst we have countries around the globe that incorporate individualism, they also incorporate all the other ism's and therefore, there isn't a country in the world we could call a capitalist country.

Individualism certainly isn't the sole preserve of Capitalism and vice versa.

Capitalism as we know it today, and that of the preceeding 500 years, is the product of Liberalism and Protestantism.

What Capitalism, Liberalism and Protestantism all have in common is expansion.

Martin Heidegger would have argued that Individualism is the sole preserve of Conservatism, and Liberalism and by extension Capitalism, can only ever lead to us value things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of life, he predicted the consumer society; and make us all pretty much the same - doing the same things and not putting much thought into it - he predicted that too.

Because he had a point when he said the expansionist demand at the core of Protestantism, Liberalism and Capitalism, is in many ways in direct contradiction to Individualism. The more we expand; the more we become the same.

Pure Capitalism will never exist not because it's not a good theory, but because the actions and instincts of human beings simply aren't conducive to the theory.

Nothing wrong with the idea of competition, meritocracy, people raising their game as a result, fair play in business etc.

What actually happens is the instincts of human beings come to the fore. Such as politics and the sycophants, spoiling tactics, cliques, jealousy, greed etc.

Nice idea, but human beings aren't as reasonable as The Enlightenment thinkers thought.

Long story short, Individualism is in many ways at odds with Capitalism.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to MariaB)

Post #: 121

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 11:46:10 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Because he had a point when he said the expansionist demand at the core of Protestantism, Liberalism and Capitalism, is in many ways in direct contradiction to Individualism. The more we expand; the more we become the same.

Actually, what we have witnessed is not the "expansionist demand" of capitalism but the inequitable accumulation of capital which leads invariably to monopolies that choke off the small proprietor. America has seen this before in the formation of Trusts during the boom times following the civil war. Additionally, capital buys government which deregulates and encourages industrial monopolies.

Neither am I am convinced that unfettered individualism is a desirable state of affairs. The strong devour the weak.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 122

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 11:52:42 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Because he had a point when he said the expansionist demand at the core of Protestantism, Liberalism and Capitalism, is in many ways in direct contradiction to Individualism. The more we expand; the more we become the same.

Actually, what we have witnessed is not the "expansionist demand" of capitalism but the inequitable accumulation of capital which leads invariably to monopolies that choke off the small proprietor. America has seen this before in the formation of Trusts during the boom times following the civil war. Additionally, capital buys government which deregulates and encourages industrial monopolies.

Neither am I am convinced that unfettered individualism is a desirable state of affairs. The strong devour the weak.

Individualism has nothing whatsoever to do with 'the strong devouring the weak'.

In my view, Individualism is more to do with staying close to nature, our natural selves and as a result we wouldn't desire 'the accumulation of capital'.

That is a conservative philosophy and in that respect they have a point.

What you're describing is a product of Liberalism.

Just out of interest, how did this 'inequitable accumulation of capital' come about?

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to vincentML)

Post #: 123

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 11:54:38 AM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Because of the mentality of the cold wariors it is pretty easy to lable it socialism/communism.
Amerika is currently gearing up to build 2500 f35 aircraft at $340,000,000 per copy...(this does not include spare parts and cost of operation). This is a giant handout socialism/communism to the war toy manufacturers. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge of aircraft knows that the f35 is no less than two generations ahead of anything in the sky or on the drawing board. This begs the question...why???
Why are we building aircraft that are not needed instead of funding health care??? More than 800 trillion taxpayers dollars

For the record, for the first time EVER, I agree with you. Spending 340M$ for a fighter is ridiculous. But so is spending 2$B for a destroyer. That, however, does not make obamacare any better a place to waste money.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 124

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 12:22:29 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

the idea that price increases in the 2000's were driven by fee for service models is ridiculous.
Price drivers then were largely to compensate for decreasing insurance rates, and decreasing federal reimbursement rates.

Cite please.

Its not like you can't use google. Oh. Probably it is. There are you know dozens of papers on this. If you had read any of them you should have wandered across this concept, and not been so surprised by it.
Here is literally the first cite I ran

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/12/news/economy/health-care-costs/index.htm

And here's a quote from it:

quote:

An increasingly significant issue for hospitals is the increase in patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid -- 60% of all admissions. Neither program fully reimburses the cost of hospital care, the hospital association said.

Hospitals are also seeing a jump in the cost of care for patients who can't pay, which averages about 6% of hospital expenses. Hospitals assume those costs as part of their legal duties to provide "charity care."

While it is true that America has a fee for service model; and while it is also true that America spends more than most countries on healthcare, the supposition that the fee for service model was responsible for increases in the time period specified is simply wrong.

As is the idea that American health care is poor, or middle of the pack. 80% of all medical devices used in the world today were invented in the US.

Since no one has refuted the lunacy of using WHO as a measure of healthcare, (or even addressed it) I will assume you are intellectually incapable of debating the point. If you want to measure the efficacy of health care, look at the standard of care for each disease or illness.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 125

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 1:17:26 PM

MariaB

Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

Individualism is a capitalist concept and that's why pure capitalism can never really exist. Whilst we have countries around the globe that incorporate individualism, they also incorporate all the other ism's and therefore, there isn't a country in the world we could call a capitalist country.

Individualism certainly isn't the sole preserve of Capitalism and vice versa.

Capitalism as we know it today, and that of the preceeding 500 years, is the product of Liberalism and Protestantism.

What Capitalism, Liberalism and Protestantism all have in common is expansion.

Martin Heidegger would have argued that Individualism is the sole preserve of Conservatism, and Liberalism and by extension Capitalism, can only ever lead to us value things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of life, he predicted the consumer society; and make us all pretty much the same - doing the same things and not putting much thought into it - he predicted that too.

Because he had a point when he said the expansionist demand at the core of Protestantism, Liberalism and Capitalism, is in many ways in direct contradiction to Individualism. The more we expand; the more we become the same.

Pure Capitalism will never exist not because it's not a good theory, but because the actions and instincts of human beings simply aren't conducive to the theory.

Nothing wrong with the idea of competition, meritocracy, people raising their game as a result, fair play in business etc.

What actually happens is the instincts of human beings come to the fore. Such as politics and the sycophants, spoiling tactics, cliques, jealousy, greed etc.

Nice idea, but human beings aren't as reasonable as The Enlightenment thinkers thought.

Long story short, Individualism is in many ways at odds with Capitalism.

I don't disagree with any of this, especially your last sentence. Its merely a philosophy, an idealism that, like Marxism can only evolve and work with other ism's and of course, mere segments of Capitalism will always be at odds with individualism.

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 126

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 1:55:09 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

Individualism is a capitalist concept and that's why pure capitalism can never really exist. Whilst we have countries around the globe that incorporate individualism, they also incorporate all the other ism's and therefore, there isn't a country in the world we could call a capitalist country.

Individualism certainly isn't the sole preserve of Capitalism and vice versa.

Capitalism as we know it today, and that of the preceeding 500 years, is the product of Liberalism and Protestantism.

What Capitalism, Liberalism and Protestantism all have in common is expansion.

Martin Heidegger would have argued that Individualism is the sole preserve of Conservatism, and Liberalism and by extension Capitalism, can only ever lead to us value things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of life, he predicted the consumer society; and make us all pretty much the same - doing the same things and not putting much thought into it - he predicted that too.

Because he had a point when he said the expansionist demand at the core of Protestantism, Liberalism and Capitalism, is in many ways in direct contradiction to Individualism. The more we expand; the more we become the same.

Pure Capitalism will never exist not because it's not a good theory, but because the actions and instincts of human beings simply aren't conducive to the theory.

Nothing wrong with the idea of competition, meritocracy, people raising their game as a result, fair play in business etc.

What actually happens is the instincts of human beings come to the fore. Such as politics and the sycophants, spoiling tactics, cliques, jealousy, greed etc.

Nice idea, but human beings aren't as reasonable as The Enlightenment thinkers thought.

Long story short, Individualism is in many ways at odds with Capitalism.

I don't disagree with any of this, especially your last sentence. Its merely a philosophy, an idealism that, like Marxism can only evolve and work with other ism's and of course, mere segments of Capitalism will always be at odds with individualism.

As far as I can tell, Marx didn't get very much right at all. He assumed that a revolution would happen in England, not Russia, because of a relatively 'educated' working class and a comparatively wealthy establishment.

How wrong could he be. Turned out that an 'educated' working class chose to join them rather than fight them, whereas what caused the revolution in Russia was an uneducated peasant society willing to listen to any old promise.

He was completely wrong and any standing he has today is more to do with his philosophy than his politics.

Marxism can't work or evolve into anything else because it's a load of old bollocks.

Capitalism can certainly lay claim to a functioning philosophy in a way Marxism never could, unless you live in North Korea or somewhere like that.

Regardless, Capitalism and Individualism simply aren't the same thing at all, and one doesn't lead to the other.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to MariaB)

Post #: 127

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 2:21:46 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Because of the mentality of the cold wariors it is pretty easy to lable it socialism/communism.
Amerika is currently gearing up to build 2500 f35 aircraft at $340,000,000 per copy...(this does not include spare parts and cost of operation). This is a giant handout socialism/communism to the war toy manufacturers. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge of aircraft knows that the f35 is no less than two generations ahead of anything in the sky or on the drawing board. This begs the question...why???
Why are we building aircraft that are not needed instead of funding health care??? More than 800 trillion taxpayers dollars

It may be ahead technologically but it is like a beta version of software. It cannot even beat an F-16 in a dogfight. A fucking MIG would rip its wings off.

In a way you're right, they tried to do too much too soon. Just like new cars running Windows, are they fucking carazy ? I heard a horror story on that on Usenet from a guy who rented a new Jeep and the computer kept crashing. They were afraid to shut it off because it might not start, and they were not in the city.

I remember the old day, the US was in a false sense of security with having really good fighter jets, but still they needed a computer to run while the MIGs did not. That means after an EMP guess who is flying and who is not.

One thing to understand is that most USians get most of their info in the US. the military edge is not what people think. Right now Russia has missiles that go twice as far and three times as fast as the best the US has.

The bottom line is that US weapons are not so much better, it is that there are so many MORE of them. It might take 4 of our planes to take down one of the enemy's, but by golly we got them and have been paying billions a year to keep them greased up.

Meantime, Russia is refitting 40 year old sub killer weapons with modern technology. they were mothballed under trwaty during the cold war, however they are quite formidable and nothing has been developed to counter them.

And now China has their own GPS system and weapon capable of disabling satellites. What does this mean ? That means they got satellite recon and after blinding a couple of ours we do not. And now we know they are not loyal to "us" because they are not only getting cozy with Russia, during the sanctions against Iran they were buying Iranian oil FOR GOLD. And don't forget, the "C" in BRICS stand for China, and BRICS has officially declared war on the petrodollar. And not to forget the "R" in BRICS stands for Russia.

All this means we are headed for a shitstorm unless things change real quick. Almost all Presidential candidate will cave to AIPAC and attack Iran. Not for lobby money, but they can make other threats, as well as promises. Obama has resisted so far, so far that the editor in chief of The Atlanta Jewish Times openly called for his assassination in print. Israel wants Iran neutralized, broken up like Iraq and Afghanistan so to be less of a threat, and for the international banks to take control of their economies and natural resources.

And now, they distract you with Obamacare, which is actually called the ACA but should be called the great insurance company ripoff plan, that worked. We are going to war folks, the real big one this time. and it does not look promising. and all those F-35s ? Just how many have they built so far that can actually fucking fly ? They've had more defects, flaws and design flaws than Microsoft Windows.

T^T

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 128

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 2:41:56 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"Actually there are at least two main types of fascism. Socialist (govt. ownership of the means of production) fascism which in history, has proven to be in name only because the Nazis who used it gain power, then turned German into a fascist oligarchy for the benefit of the German industrial elites and bankers. The 'ownership' and profits of which were...very private.
"

It already was. the bankers stole the money like they do today. Reparations were not the reason you needed a wheelbarrel full of money to buy a loaf of bread, the people with the gold teeth and jewelry and Swiss bank accounts were. And they supported the Russian revolution.

Swiss bank account, in a place where you needed a wheelbarrell ful of money to buy a loaf of bread. No wonder Hitler got power so easily. And remember, even if reparations were a big part of Germany's financial woes at the time, Hitler did not do it. He had nothing to do with starting WW1 at all. Maybe served in it, but did not start it.

They built a war machine so fast it made people's heads spin. A country so beat down, all the sudden nearly a major world power. ON WHAT ?

Productivity and industry. Something WE DO NOT HAVE HERE.

Think about that before advocating attacking ANYONE. (not that you did but I thought I would mention it)

T^T

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 129

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 2:53:06 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

the bankers stole the money like they do today.

Real0ne, Mr Rogers and Termyn80r slavvering on about 'the bankers'.

I would lay good money that all three of you are from Eastern European extraction and this bollocks has been handed down through the family.

Lemme guess? It all started with an old Polish or Russian fella who passed down such fables. The bankers, the Jews, and so on.

Christ.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 130

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 3:13:44 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

What, you think they are just poor paupers ?

Who the fuck finances AIPAC then ?

You bought the bullshit.

T^T

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 131

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 3:24:26 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

What, you think they are just poor paupers ?

Who the fuck finances AIPAC then ?

You bought the bullshit.

T^T

Out of idle curiosity, is the answer: "the bankers"?

I would like to say I have dug deep into my knowledge reserves for this one, but seeing as every fucking answer is "the bankers" I feel that accepting any sort of credit for getting this one correct is akin to being lazy at worst and cheating at best.

Please do give my prize to charity, with my charity of choice being: "The International Jewish, Banking Consortium". They're hard pressed for a few quid at the moment.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 132

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 3:42:21 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"Please do give my prize to charity, with my charity of choice being: "The International Jewish, Banking Consortium". They're hard pressed for a few quid at the moment. "

Maybe I should give it for the cause of real education.

They take over a country the first thing they do is put up a bank these days. War is al about money. that is why North Korea is not getting threatened. They do not have anything saleable. that is why Japan, not Germany got bombed, no natural resources. that is why Iran is such a big deal, because when they see "Visigoths" coming over the hill they will blow themselves up and make it damnear impossible to extract the oil. Can you imagine working there is a radiation proof suit ? Iran means to attack noone, but wants that option to check out.

Milesovic - cadmium. Very inportant to nuclear technology. they tok over the miners union, which was filled with predominantly one race. they tried to take over the country, and since they were somewhat segregated raciall, the PTB could use "ethic cleansing" as an excuse to go take control of the cadmium mines AND THE BANKS. Look it up.

Diem = phosphorous. They assassimated him because he would not kowtoe to the deal they wanted on the natural resources of Vietnam.

It is not just the being able to buy the materials, elements. Elements cannot be created. Like the US has near a total lock on all the helium in the world. If it were more useful they would attack Texas for it.

All of this is for control of commerce and natural resources. Otherwise, why are we in Mali where there is gold and other really cool stuff, but not in hellholes like Zimbabwe. The answer is that one place has something we want and the other does not.

And speaking of Mali, there is going to be a joint mission between FFrance and the US there to "stabilize" the government that they just got done destabilizing. This is to sneak enough gold out of there to pay back the Germans who entrusted their gold to the US which then spent it. And now, unless the US wants to be renamed Mud, they better come up with that gold.

And Moody's is about to drop another hammer soon as well I bet. Know about Moody's ?

T^T

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 133

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/27/2015 3:58:27 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

War is al about money.

Let's discuss a case, then.

WW1.

The outcome: France on the bare bones of its arse; Germany on the bare bones of its arse; Britain on the bare bones of its arse.

Is it really all about money? These three nations were in ruins after WW1.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 134

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/28/2015 12:11:39 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Actually there are at least two main types of fascism. Socialist (govt. ownership of the means of production) fascism which in history, has proven to be in name only because the Nazis who used it gain power, then turned German into a fascist oligarchy for the benefit of the German industrial elites and bankers. The 'ownership' and profits of which were...very private.

Then there is the outright capitalist fascism of Mussolini who coined the term...fascism. Italy's ownership and profits were also quite private. Now the communists used the economic system of...communism that required state fascism for its functioning which proved to be the worst of all fascism(s) because there were very little profits despite govt. ownership of the means of production. The best current example of which is N. Korea, which feeds the party well and provides for [its] luxuries while the people barely survive.

N. Korea (govt.) must work very hard due to its isolation in that they need to continually find ways to export (trade) their only wealth (labor) from an economically closed society which whether either party likes it or not...competes with new 'modern' Chinese capitalist fascism. It is because China has opened up to western capitalist profiteers, that they now enjoy the wealth of their labor at all.

That's why after all, Britain had to start the Opium War. There was nothing else to produce for what was a closed Chinese market except maybe food. (rice ?) AND why the US intervention into Afghanistan was so important in reviving their opium fields. what else do they have ?

There are many types of fascism but the one we should be sitting up and taking note of is modern day fascism...something we should perhaps re-name "Corporatism"

Mussolini touched on that in his creation of fascism. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ― Benito Mussolini

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to MariaB)

Post #: 135

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/28/2015 12:38:56 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

War is al about money.

Let's discuss a case, then.

WW1.

The outcome: France on the bare bones of its arse; Germany on the bare bones of its arse; Britain on the bare bones of its arse.

Is it really all about money? These three nations were in ruins after WW1.

The countries you refer to were borrowers, the US (taxpayer) and the Fed the lenders. The outcome was debt. For Germany and the rest...debt, after WWI, debt in the 10's of billion$. Now ask yourself, where did all of the money go and who were the beneficiaries ?

Not only all of the expenditures before and during WWII was it the same, billion$ to bankers and producers but even after WWII, there was the multi-billion$ Marshall Plan. (again, taxpayers) Where did all of that money before, during and after these wars go to and who were the beneficiaries ?

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 136

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/28/2015 12:48:56 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

War is al about money.

Let's discuss a case, then.

WW1.

The outcome: France on the bare bones of its arse; Germany on the bare bones of its arse; Britain on the bare bones of its arse.

Is it really all about money? These three nations were in ruins after WW1.

General Smedley Butler former Marine general, wrote a book, 'War is a Racket' He labeled the US military as the world's mafia and he could teach [them] a thing or two.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 137

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/28/2015 12:50:18 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"The countries you refer to were borrowers, the US (taxpayer) and the Fed the lenders. The outcome was debt. For Germany and the rest...debt, after WWI, debt in the 10's of billion$. Now ask yourself, where did all of the money go and who were the beneficiaries ? "

Ask that about the economic crashes as well. All that money just gone and nobody has it. then they tell us it wasn't real money. So how the fuck is it going missing going to destroy the economy or make the too big to fail, fail ?

It is all simply a scheme by which the rich take from the poor. That is how they get rich and stay rich. The same families ran the banks before and after WW1, the same families ran the banks after WW2. And their coolies and minions and other types of ilk will continue to work for them after WW3. No bank has failed during all this strife unless is was a small private Mom and Pop bank. The big ones are not worried about war because war MAKES them money. Where do you think Haliburton puts their money ? Once deposited the bank has use of the money for investments, so much money that they can manipulate the market and steal more by inflating and deflating the price of a stock. Jefferson mentioned that in relation to the inflation and deflation banks can cause to the currency of a nation, but now so many are dependent upon the market, the US dollar is not much better than a stock certificate. It might not fail completely but has the possibility of halving in value or worse. And it has.

T^T

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 138

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/28/2015 12:55:10 AM

MariaB

Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

As far as I can tell, Marx didn't get very much right at all. He assumed that a revolution would happen in England, not Russia, because of a relatively 'educated' working class and a comparatively wealthy establishment.

How wrong could he be. Turned out that an 'educated' working class chose to join them rather than fight them, whereas what caused the revolution in Russia was an uneducated peasant society willing to listen to any old promise.

He was completely wrong and any standing he has today is more to do with his philosophy than his politics.

Marxism can't work or evolve into anything else because it's a load of old bollocks.

Capitalism can certainly lay claim to a functioning philosophy in a way Marxism never could, unless you live in North Korea or somewhere like that.

Regardless, Capitalism and Individualism simply aren't the same thing at all, and one doesn't lead to the other.

Lolz at your Marxist comments.

Anyway I'm not here to hijack a thread on Obamacare to discuss the concepts and correlations between Marxism and Capitalism but would be more than happy to do so in a thread of its own.

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 139

RE: recent obamacare news - 12/28/2015 1:16:59 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Actually there are at least two main types of fascism. Socialist (govt. ownership of the means of production) fascism which in history, has proven to be in name only because the Nazis who used it gain power, then turned German into a fascist oligarchy for the benefit of the German industrial elites and bankers. The 'ownership' and profits of which were...very private.
"

It already was. the bankers stole the money like they do today. Reparations were not the reason you needed a wheelbarrel full of money to buy a loaf of bread, the people with the gold teeth and jewelry and Swiss bank accounts were. And they supported the Russian revolution.

Swiss bank account, in a place where you needed a wheelbarrell ful of money to buy a loaf of bread. No wonder Hitler got power so easily. And remember, even if reparations were a big part of Germany's financial woes at the time, Hitler did not do it. He had nothing to do with starting WW1 at all. Maybe served in it, but did not start it.

They built a war machine so fast it made people's heads spin. A country so beat down, all the sudden nearly a major world power. ON WHAT ?

Productivity and industry. Something WE DO NOT HAVE HERE.

Think about that before advocating attacking ANYONE. (not that you did but I thought I would mention it)

T^T

Never wrote that Hitler had anything to do with WWI. The German bankers printed up new currency (papiermark) to deliberately pay for govt., caused inflation, depress the economy and remove the Kaiser and put in anybody who would go to war with the likewise western financed communist revolution in Russia. Both Germany and Russia were ruled by despotic monarchs.

However, Germany (Hitler) never nationalized industry and maintained private property and profits which he needed to do, to keep the bankers lending. Germany under Hitler used the Reichsmark, sold govt. bonds for new currency and printed more.

[He] vastly expanded govt. public spending and actually saw prices and wages rise and near zero unemployment and then had to put in wage and price controls. It was the Keynesian dream.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 140

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: recent obamacare news

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109