the new capitalism
$Zero
take from the greedy, give to the generous.
EOFS.
that's how you inspire creative and productive innovation.
that's how you genuinely stimulate the economy.
that's how you create real lasting jobs.
in a world such as ours, all other plans will fail.
-$Zero...
psychological warfare.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8af08650c400d8b1
Mark
SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS
$Zero
fails to what?
but who said anything about Socialism?
not very bright, are you?
i'm not advocating redistributing the wealth equally.
i'm advocating starving the greedy unproductive fucks.
and rewarding generosity and creativity.
hence: the new capitalism
duh.
next time put on your thinking cap.
assuming you can get your hands on one and can figure out how to turn
it on.
-$Zero...
being a brainwashed sap is a delusion
that you're not a brainwashed sap.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef8faded7a439899
Robert McClelland
>
> SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS
It's failed Norway all the way to the number one nation in the world.
I pity those poor socialist Norwegians and their best standard of
living.
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
The louder you yell, the more you come
across as a pipsqueak.
Hum, say pipsqueak 5 times.
pipsqueak, pipsqueak, pipsqueak, pipsqueak, pipsqueak
See, cause your ideas have the presence of a pip, with
all the fortitude of a squeak,
ergo, pipsqueak.
---
Mark
wrote:
Just exactly how do you define number one
nation in the world and how would you possibly and
singularly correlate socialism to this perceived and
yet undefined superiority irrespective of other factors
such as population density, geographic location,
historical participation in wars and alliances, etc.
Socialism leads to stagflation, and the best model
to understand this is the history of the Soviet Union,
or better yet and more recently and transparent, the
history of Brazil over the last 40 years, and how they
overturned that failing philosophy and reinstituted the
incentive aspect to a free market society.
---
mark, circa-2010
Robert McClelland
> On Nov 10, 4:00 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:39 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS
>
> > It's failed Norway all the way to the number one nation in the world.
> > I pity those poor socialist Norwegians and their best standard of
> > living.
>
> Just exactly how do you define number one
> nation in the world and how would you possibly and
> singularly correlate socialism to this perceived and
> yet undefined superiority irrespective of other factors
> such as population density, geographic location,
> historical participation in wars and alliances, etc.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hum_dev_ind-economy-human-development-index
>
> Socialism leads to stagflation, and the best model
> to understand this is the history of the Soviet Union,
> or better yet and more recently and transparent, the
> history of Brazil over the last 40 years, and how they
> overturned that failing philosophy and reinstituted the
> incentive aspect to a free market society.
The Soviet Union wasn't socialist.
Mark
wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:16 pm, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 4:00 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 8:39 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS
>
> > > It's failed Norway all the way to the number one nation in the world.
> > > I pity those poor socialist Norwegians and their best standard of
> > > living.
>
> > Just exactly how do you define number one
> > nation in the world and how would you possibly and
> > singularly correlate socialism to this perceived and
> > yet undefined superiority irrespective of other factors
> > such as population density, geographic location,
> > historical participation in wars and alliances, etc.
>
>
>
>
> > Socialism leads to stagflation, and the best model
> > to understand this is the history of the Soviet Union,
> > or better yet and more recently and transparent, the
> > history of Brazil over the last 40 years, and how they
> > overturned that failing philosophy and reinstituted the
> > incentive aspect to a free market society.
>
> The Soviet Union wasn't socialist.
I knew you would say that, and you should know
that I would know, and also what I meant. It was
for all intents and purposes a system whereby there
was no incentive aspect or free market economy and
the ensuing failure within the narrow catagory of
economics proves that without ambition, and
entitlement to the creative, then stagflation leads
to depression.
Now, can you make words to support your inital
nonsensical arguement or not?
Norway the number one country in the world?
Ok, explain.
---
Mark
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Norway has the most beautiful scenery in the
world. They consume a lot of seafood. They
live a very different lifestyle than Americans, and
there are many benefits to them as they have
evolved demographically very differently from the
United States.
I wouldn't attribute this high standard of living
to the economic policies of socialism. I see
many other reasons.
---
Mark
Grand Mal
"Mark" <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a650def-9f2c-422c...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Ok, explain.
---
Mark
*********************************************
Google it. Here's a start...
http://skeptically.org/economics/id21.html
Here's another take on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
$Zero
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > being a brainwashed sap is a delusion
> > that you're not a brainwashed sap.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef8faded7a439899
>
>
> across as a pipsqueak.
is that why you used ALL CAPS above?
"SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS"
-- braindead pipsqueaker
> Hum, say pipsqueak 5 times.
>
> pipsqueak, pipsqueak, pipsqueak, pipsqueak, pipsqueak
>
> See, cause your ideas have the presence of a pip, with
> all the fortitude of a squeak,
>
> ergo, pipsqueak.
"SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS"
-- braindead pipsqueaker
anyway, again, i ask you the simple question:
fails to what?
trying using your alleged mind this time, you brainwashed sap.
-$Zero...
the verification process does not
lend itself to actual verification.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef8faded7a439899
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
see:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Manitoba+couple+claims+lottery+prize/2206839/story.html
Piet de Arcilla
>
> take from the greedy, give to the generous.
But the generous will give away what they get, by definition, so the
greedy will end up with it all again posthaste.
It seems pointless.
Piet de Arcilla
wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:16 pm, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 4:00 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 8:39 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS
>
> > > It's failed Norway all the way to the number one nation in the world.
> > > I pity those poor socialist Norwegians and their best standard of
> > > living.
>
> > Just exactly how do you define number one
> > nation in the world and how would you possibly and
> > singularly correlate socialism to this perceived and
> > yet undefined superiority irrespective of other factors
> > such as population density, geographic location,
> > historical participation in wars and alliances, etc.
>
>
>
>
> > Socialism leads to stagflation, and the best model
> > to understand this is the history of the Soviet Union,
> > or better yet and more recently and transparent, the
> > history of Brazil over the last 40 years, and how they
> > overturned that failing philosophy and reinstituted the
> > incentive aspect to a free market society.
>
> The Soviet Union wasn't socialist.
They called themselves socialist, like the Nazis, so who are you to
say they were less socialist than any other socialists?
If you were an atheist, it would be kind of silly to declare that the
Mormons are heretics and everyone who says they are Christians is
wrong.
Piet de Arcilla
Lutefisk!
$Zero
> On Nov 10, 8:05 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > the new capitalism
>
> > take from the greedy, give to the generous.
>
> But the generous will give away what they get, by definition,
the generous will keep the resources flowing, spreading them around to
a far greater pool of potentially creative people. the greedy are way
too petty and cautious, therefore they tend to enable monopolistic
idiocy. and corporate fascism.
so, in a greedy-based economy, the gap between the rich and the poor
gets larger and larger w/ very few useful and mutually beneficial
innovations.
when greedy petty fucks control the greatest percentage of wealth and
resources, the possibility for economic growth endlessly dwindles
because capital gets concentrated into the hands of a very small group
of uncreative assholes. greedy assholes.
petty greedy fucking assholes do not get along well with creative
thinking people, so the gross amount of visionaries in such a society
dissipates to almost none as they are instead saddled w/ the
ridiculous high costs of survival mandated by the greedy fucking
assholes (who, ironically enough, only make a pittance doing so -- the
greedy squander their power oppressing otherwise creative productive
people into spending their valuable time engaged in pointless
struggling to pay ridiculously over-inflated bills).
also, the greedy fucking assholes offer very limited incentives to
create because they are too fucking greedy and want way too much of
the percentages, if they offer any incentives at all. after all, why
should they? they believe that they have everyone over the barrel.
instead, they'd rather have creative people as salaried employees, if
they even want them at all. this takes the incentive and joy out of
the act of creation.
> so the greedy will end up with it all again posthaste.
nope.
starve the greedy, feed the generous.
the greedy serve no useful purpose whatsoever in a free market
society.
they are naturally inclined to drag it down to utter disaster because
it does not serve them, which is all they really care about.
especially since they control 90% of the resources already.
starve the fuckers.
they have no desire for others to flourish because they are too
fucking greedy to see the bigger picture.
their fears and pettiness will always win out over any possible
mutually beneficial alternative.
it's the nature of greed itself.
> It seems pointless.
what's totally pointless is feeding the greedy and starving the
generous.
as i've noted, the greedy serve absolutely no purpose in a free market
economy.
they ruin everything.
starve the fuckers.
give them an incentive to be generous.
ba'dum, chsh!
anyway, you won't find this economic truth in any college economics
course, particularly using the "greedy fucking assholes" language, but
nothing could be truer. or more valuable.
-$Zero...
bowling shoes are tight, but the pizza tastes good.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/10e4520342ba8ac0
Piet de Arcilla
> as i've noted, the greedy serve absolutely no purpose in a free market
> economy.
That's like saying downhill serves no purpose in a watershed. It's
where the water runs.
$Zero
economically speaking, the greedy are much more akin to black holes
than watersheds.
now, you may say that black holes serve a useful purpose in a vibrant
galaxy, but i would disagree.
and i'm pretty sure that all other beings in a galaxy would strongly
agree.
-$Zero...
it's the nature of greed itself.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c15884152c27bcba
Mark
<minor snipp>
Actually, greedy people rarely attain
real success. In order to rise to the top,
it takes a multifaceted effort of determination,
focus, talent, and especially, cooperation from
others who also benefit.
The occasional con artists and thieves you read
about rarely have anything in the long run.
---
Mark
$Zero
> On Nov 11, 12:34 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <minor snipp>
>
> Actually, greedy people rarely attain
> real success. In order to rise to the top,
> it takes a multifaceted effort of determination,
> focus, talent, and especially, cooperation from
> others who also benefit.
yeah, right.
that sure explains the unbelievablely widening gap between the filthy
rich and the suicidal poor.
yep.
and it nicely explains how more than 95% of the world's wealth is
owned by about 5% of such ungreedy "successes". and all those economic
collapses of all manner of industries. not tomention banks, FFS.
but it sounds nice anyway.
good PR.
helps to keep all those brainwashed saps from thinking too much.
jolly good.
...
it also nicely explains the incredibly repugnant opposition to health
care reform, aye?
yeppers.
not greedy at all.
> The occasional con artists and thieves you read
> about rarely have anything in the long run.
LOL.
Gawd.
you _are_ funny.
-$Zero...
i know what i know.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5a091fc1dd848a9a
Piet de Arcilla
> On Nov 11, 1:31 am, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:34 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > as i've noted, the greedy serve absolutely no purpose in a free market
> > > economy.
>
> > That's like saying downhill serves no purpose in a watershed. It's
> > where the water runs.
>
> economically speaking, the greedy are much more akin to black holes
> than watersheds.
>
> now, you may say that black holes serve a useful purpose in a vibrant
> galaxy, but i would disagree.
>
> and i'm pretty sure that all other beings in a galaxy would strongly
> agree.
I don't know what purpose black holes serve, but gravity is a fact of
life. It shapes everything, and you can't avoid it. You can't remake
society based on water flowing uphill.
$Zero
> On Nov 11, 1:52 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 1:31 am, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 12:34 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > as i've noted, the greedy serve absolutely no purpose in a free market
> > > > economy.
>
> > > That's like saying downhill serves no purpose in a watershed. It's
> > > where the water runs.
>
> > economically speaking, the greedy are much more akin to black holes
> > than watersheds.
>
> > now, you may say that black holes serve a useful purpose in a vibrant
> > galaxy, but i would disagree.
>
> > and i'm pretty sure that all other beings in a galaxy would strongly
> > agree.
>
> I don't know what purpose black holes serve, but gravity is a fact of
> life.
needs and wants = gravity
greed = black hole
and greed, like a black hole, serves no useful function in a vibrant
marketplace.
greed, like black holes, can only destroy a vibrant marketplace.
> It shapes everything, and you can't avoid it.
greed shapes nothing.
and yes, you can and should avoid it.
> You can't remake society based on water flowing uphill.
you can't even have a society in a black hole.
anyway, what makes you think that greed is anything other than a
destructive force?
or are you still operating using some weird alternate definition of
greed?
try to give an example of greed being a constructive dynamic for an
economy.
go ahead.
let's see where your head is at.
-$Zero...
creative moron. i like it. has a nice ring to it.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ced29bc2b3bb580b