Capitalism is dead...

[HardySpicer]

Discuss!

It seems that the general idea is to prop up banks and large
corporations and bugger everybody else. The ordinary taxpayer has to
pay their debts. The majority of the world is still poor and lives on
less than 2 US dollars a day.
The rich are getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. The
experiment has failed. So many people are in credit it should be
called Creditism.

Hardy

[DVH]

"HardySpicer" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c433005-598b-41cf...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

1) Capitalism isn't an experiment. It's the upholding of the right to use
and profit from one's own capital freely - whether that means one's brains
and muscles (human capital) or one's money (financial capital). This may be
difficult to understand because many other -isms (eg communism) are projects
involving restrictions. Capitalism is an anti-project.

2) If "the general idea" of policy is to prop up banks, then the policy is
not capitalism and you're looking in the wrong place.

3) The last 20 years has seen the world population increase its wealth
faster than at any time in history. We are seeing the creation of the great
global middle class.

4) If you live on 2 dollars a day in America that is bad. If you live on 2
dollars a day in a country where you can feed a family on 50 cents, that's
not so bad.

5) Are the poor getting poorer? That's probably wildly wrong, but I'd have
to understand your terms - eg, the poor in this country? the poor worldwide?

6) You say the ordinary taxpayer has to pay the banks' debts. The vast
majority of the debt paying ultimately consists of transfers from one pot of
money to another. One pension fund to another. One deposit account to
another. One taxpayer to another taxpayer.

[True Blue]

"HardySpicer" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c433005-598b-41cf...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

We are so immersed in capitalism, that we forget what is actually is.

Capitalism is competition and competition is a core trait of human nature.
All other systems (and let's face it, they're all variants of socialism),
seek to excessively curb competition (and therefore "incentive") to "aid"
the weak. This ignores the fact that those who are the most competitive, are
the ones who have driven up the living standards of *all* the people in
capitalist countries, over the last 150 years. Try mowing your lawn,
cleaning your house, washing and drying your clothes, all in a Saturday
morning, to leave the rest of the weekend free for leisure, with the tools
available to a Soviet household of 1990.

The current opportunistic hysteria, amongst some claiming "capitalism is
dead", can be compared to having a car's brakes disabled and concluding,
upon the inevitable crash, that cars are not viable and it's time to walk
everywhere again. It also exposes the myopia of those who regard capitalism
as banking and banking as capitalism. Capitalism is the means of production
and the provision of service in the hands of competing entities.
Notwithstanding a certain case for natural monopolies, putting this
provision in the hands of dis-incentivised, uncompetive State monoliths is a
recipe for disaster.

Banking is merely a component of capitalism. In 1993, when I applied for a
mortgage that was 3.7 times more than my income, I was refused on the
grounds that the bank would have to break BoE rules in order to lend me the
money. When, in 1997, we elected pyramid scheme salesmen to run the country,
the banking system had its brakes disconnected.

[Harry Merrick]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:35:05 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Discuss!
>
>It seems that the general idea is to prop up banks and large
>corporations and bugger everybody else.

Then, if it seems that way to you, obviously you do not bother to read
financial and political papers which more than adequately explain
exactly WHY these things have to be done.

The ordinary taxpayer has to
>pay their debts. The majority of the world is still poor and lives on
>less than 2 US dollars a day.

NOT strictly true. A contrived argument from yourself, see your
original source Yahoo:

"here is a great discrepancy between peoples incomes world wide so its
really misleading to give the numbers. For instance. The average
income per person world wide is 10,000 dollars per year according to
the CIA factbook (so i guess that a 2 income earner family would be
20k per year. But then remember that 60% of the world lives on less
than 2 dollars per day.

To get a better idea, take 9 people from third world countries earning
2 dollars per day and 1 american guy making 100,000$ per year. Put
their wages together and you get and average wage of $10,657 per year.
So you see that even though 9 people are making less than 1,000
dollars per year, the "average" wage says its 10,657 per year so you
can see its really off. The United States is 5% of the worlds
population, but we make 25% of all the wealth. All the countries in
Europe is another 5% of the population and they control another 25% of
the wealth. So that means that last 50% of the wealth is split between
the other 90% of the people. So using that figure, you could say that
that 90% of the worlds AVERAGE income world wide is around $4,500 to
$5,000 per year
3 years ago

Out of date as well, but OK.

>The rich are getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. The
>experiment has failed. So many people are in credit it should be
>called Creditism.

Are you sure you mean that? So many people in "Credit"?? I don't think
so! Oh, and the poor are always with us. Some things never change, and
will not until or before we all get a United World Government, which
is unlikely to happen in the near or distant future!

Harry Merrick.

[sutartsorric]

On Sep 26, 10:25 am, "True Blue" <garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> In 1993, when I applied for a
> mortgage that was 3.7 times more than my income, I was refused on the
> grounds that the bank would have to break BoE rules in order to lend me the
> money. When, in 1997, we elected pyramid scheme salesmen to run the country,
> the banking system had its brakes disconnected.

You were refused 3.7 times your income in 1993? A sign of the times.

In 1975 when I applied for a mortgage the limit was 2.5 times income
and I was required to have had a certain credit balance with the
particular building society for at least a year.

The implication is always that the banks are wholly responsible for
the credit crisis, but the borrowing public must also take a fair
share of the blame. No one forced them to have a 100% mortgage of 5
times their income.

Greed is where we all fall down. We (ok - most of us) want the most
expensive and up to date items of the consumer society and we want
them now, but that attitude comes at a very high price down the line,
and we are paying it now.

[Farmer Giles]

"sutartsorric" <sutart...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:010c2ad0-d18a-49dd...@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

---------------------------------------------------

Actually, people *are* forced to borrow. In fact they're forced to borrow
more and more. That's the way the corrupt banking system works. I suggest
you study it a wee bit.

[True Blue]

"Ishvara" <ish...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j5pklu$1h8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 2011-09-26 11:29, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> "sutartsorric"<sutart...@googlemail.com> wrote

>> > The implication is always that the banks are wholly responsible for
>>> the credit crisis, but the borrowing public must also take a fair
>>> share of the blame. No one forced them to have a 100% mortgage of 5
>>> times their income.
>>

>> Actually, people *are* forced to borrow. In fact they're forced to borrow
>> more and more. That's the way the corrupt banking system works. I suggest
>> you study it a wee bit.
>

> People were also forced into borrowing by the property bubble and property
> parasitism encouraged by restrictions on supply and inflation of demand,
> and by pro-landlord, anti-tenant laws.

I-m-m-i-g-r-a-t-i-o-n..............

[Farmer Giles]

"True Blue" <garyb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PKSdnVuPr-dnxx3T...@giganews.com...

An important factor in the debt money creation scheme. One of the reasons -
but not the only one - why the ruling elites promote it.

[Akins of that Ilk]

Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.

[DVH]

"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>
> Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>

Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.

To suggest this is to make a category error.

Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to toddle
along unhindered.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>
> Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>
> To suggest this is to make a category error.
>
> Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to toddle
> along unhindered.

In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
the poor. The poor are the ones who keep the capitalist system going,
since they pay more for things and spend a far greater percentage of
their income than do the rich. Because of the built-in disadvantage,
the capitalist system ends up choking itself to death as the poor are
squeezed harder and harder so that they have less and less money to
spend, which leads to recession, and less new money coming in for the
wealthy to hoard.

[DVH]

"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:e86c5111-e313-4b7c...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>
> Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>
> To suggest this is to make a category error.
>
> Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to
> toddle
> along unhindered.

> In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
> the poor.

Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?

This is a fact, recorded by economists, journalists and academics, and
anyone who travels.

In the last half dozen years, half a billion people have escaped extreme
poverty (around a dollar a day or less) thanks to capitalism.

The world population is exploding, and the total number of poor is falling!

The past quarter century has seen an explosion of wealth like nothing else
in history. Capitalism has provided us with dozens of life-changing gadgets
and the free market means their prices are falling every year. More people
own telephones, cars, fridges and air-conditioning than ever before.

> The poor are the ones who keep the capitalist system going,
> since they pay more for things and spend a far greater percentage of
> their income than do the rich. Because of the built-in disadvantage,
> the capitalist system ends up choking itself to death as the poor are
> squeezed harder and harder so that they have less and less money to
> spend, which leads to recession, and less new money coming in for the
> wealthy to hoard.

You're either blind or thick.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?

Coincidence. That is not the aim of capitalism. Its aim is to enrich the
few at the expense of the many. That is - by and large - what it does, and
the fact that some who were never meant to benefit from it in fact _do_
benefit, is in no way a 'justification' for a system whose very existence
is dependent on the creation of a deprived underclass.

Nor is there any evidence that capitalism 'does better' than Communism,
because there has never been a state on the planet which has practiced
Communism.

Y.

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'It's time for the human race to enter the solar system'
(Dan Quayle (1947 - ))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 26, 10:32 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:e86c5111-e313-4b7c...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>
> > Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>
> > To suggest this is to make a category error.
>
> > Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to
> > toddle
> > along unhindered.
> > In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
> > the poor.
>
> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?

Population increases mean that the numbers of both the rich and the
poor go up. There may be more millionaires these days, but there are
millions more living in poverty as well, and the disparity between the
haves and the have nots has broadened.

> This is a fact, recorded by economists, journalists and academics, and
> anyone who travels.
>
> In the last half dozen years, half a billion people have escaped extreme
> poverty (around a dollar a day or less) thanks to capitalism.

They may now earn more dollars, but those dollars are now worth less,
nothing has really improved.

> The world population is exploding, and the total number of poor is falling!

Really? Not in the United States. The numbers of the poor are on the
increase.

> The past quarter century has seen an explosion of wealth like nothing else
> in history. Capitalism has provided us with dozens of life-changing gadgets
> and the free market means their prices are falling every year. More people
> own telephones, cars, fridges and air-conditioning than ever before.

The prices on gadgets and gizmos are falling because the real wealth
earned by those making these things in factoiries has diminished.
Cheap foreign parts and labor may make for cheap products, but they
also mean that the real wealth of the average worker decreases.

[DVH]

"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:02j6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>
> Coincidence. That is not the aim of capitalism.

Capitalism has no aim.

> Its aim is to enrich the
> few at the expense of the many.

Have you asked it?

> That is - by and large - what it does,

Meanwhile, the number of poor people is falling.

In this dramatic collision between your claim and my fact, I wonder which
will come off unscathed?

[True Blue]

>
> Meanwhile, the number of poor people is falling.
>
> In this dramatic collision between your claim and my fact, I wonder which
> will come off unscathed?

I fear you are wasting your time, Mr H. Our man has the wisdom of the
staffroom and nought else....

[DVH]

"True Blue" <garyb...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:i92dnb2vO-rTOB3T...@giganews.com...

What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.

World Bank figures: "In 1985 average income in China was $293; in 2006 the
average income is $2025"

And that includes all the folk still living on farms.

[True Blue]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in message
news:RF1gq.1915$NO6...@newsfe16.ams2...

I'd throw that stastic about with cautionary regard to who's reading it. In
the world's staffrooms, it's a wholesale endorsment of communism. Whilst in
the real world, it's a vindication of capitalism.

[Andy Walker]

On 26/09/11 17:23, DVH wrote:
> What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.
> World Bank figures: "In 1985 average income in China was $293; in 2006 the
> average income is $2025"

OK, but in 1985 my house was worth about #45K; we sold it in 2002,
but I'd be surprised if it is today worth less than #311K, the proportionate
increase. [I forget how much the dollar has moved against the pound; but
was there not a period around then when the dollar was v close to parity?
If so, then in dollar terms, the house-price increase is even more "really
remarkable".]

IOW, if the 1985 Chinese had invested in UK property, then they
would have had the same "really remarkable" increase in wealth without
having to build factories, make cheap toys, and generally work for their
living. Where's Ishvara when you need him?

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[abelard]

wow...they really are religious marxists!

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Akins of that Ilk
<the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>>
>> Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>>
>> To suggest this is to make a category error.
>>
>> Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to toddle
>> along unhindered.
>
>In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
>the poor.

what do they do with this 'wealth'? eat 100s of dinners every day?

> The poor are the ones who keep the capitalist system going,
>since they pay more for things and spend a far greater percentage of
>their income than do the rich. Because of the built-in disadvantage,
>the capitalist system ends up choking itself to death as the poor are
>squeezed harder and harder so that they have less and less money to
>spend, which leads to recession, and less new money coming in for the
>wealthy to hoard.

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:41:20 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

>DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>
>Coincidence. That is not the aim of capitalism. Its aim is to enrich the
>few at the expense of the many. That is - by and large - what it does, and
>the fact that some who were never meant to benefit from it in fact _do_
>benefit, is in no way a 'justification' for a system whose very existence
>is dependent on the creation of a deprived underclass.

is that why they now eat meat and live with central heating
and flat screen tv?
and they even let you have a computer so's you can go on
about how exploited you are!

>Nor is there any evidence that capitalism 'does better' than Communism,
>because there has never been a state on the planet which has practiced
>Communism.

indeed..every time it fails it isn't real(tm) socialism

[DVH]

"Andy Walker" <ne...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:U32gq.932$bi7...@newsfe11.ams2...

>
>
> On 26/09/11 17:23, DVH wrote:
>> What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.
>> World Bank figures: "In 1985 average income in China was $293; in 2006
>> the
>> average income is $2025"
>
> OK, but in 1985 my house was worth about #45K; we sold it in 2002,
> but I'd be surprised if it is today worth less than #311K, the
> proportionate
> increase. [I forget how much the dollar has moved against the pound; but
> was there not a period around then when the dollar was v close to parity?
> If so, then in dollar terms, the house-price increase is even more "really
> remarkable".]

You can't eat houses, but you can easily liquidate money and eat spicey
chicken.

Also, ignore the Chinese living in the countryside and concentrate on urban
incomes. (Peasants aren't in the capitalist system).

Then update the figures to today, rather than 6 years ago.

I bet you 100 RMB Chinese urban incomes have outstripped the value of your
house by mumble mumble percent.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> "True Blue" <garyb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i92dnb2vO-rTOB3T...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the number of poor people is falling.
>>>
>>> In this dramatic collision between your claim and my fact, I wonder which
>>> will come off unscathed?
>>
>> I fear you are wasting your time, Mr H. Our man has the wisdom of the
>> staffroom and nought else....
>
> What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.

Why is that 'remarkable'?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'If G-d had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them
out of meat?'
(Sarah Palin)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[AlanG]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:32:11 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>
>"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:e86c5111-e313-4b7c...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>>
>> Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>>
>> To suggest this is to make a category error.
>>
>> Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to
>> toddle
>> along unhindered.
>
>> In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
>> the poor.
>
>Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>
>This is a fact, recorded by economists, journalists and academics, and
>anyone who travels.

Doesn't seem to havelasted
http://tinyurl.com/6yebtax

[DVH]

"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

news:ien6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>> "True Blue" <garyb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:i92dnb2vO-rTOB3T...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, the number of poor people is falling.
>>>>
>>>> In this dramatic collision between your claim and my fact, I wonder
>>>> which
>>>> will come off unscathed?
>>>
>>> I fear you are wasting your time, Mr H. Our man has the wisdom of the
>>> staffroom and nought else....
>>
>> What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.
>
> Why is that 'remarkable'?

Thirty years ago they were eating worms.

Now, a decent proportion of their population have western living standards
and it looks likely that the trend will continue just as fast if not faster.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 26, 12:04 pm, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote in messagenews:ien6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...
>
>
>
>
>
> > DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >> "True Blue" <garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >>news:i92dnb2vO-rTOB3T...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>> Meanwhile, the number of poor people is falling.
>
> >>>> In this dramatic collision between your claim and my fact, I wonder
> >>>> which
> >>>> will come off unscathed?
>
> >>> I fear you are wasting your time, Mr H. Our man has the wisdom of the
> >>> staffroom and nought else....
>
> >> What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.
>
> > Why is that 'remarkable'?
>
> Thirty years ago they were eating worms.

They are _still_ eating snails in France....

and haggis in Scotland....

[DVH]

"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:df16c94d-f315-4fb6...@q25g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

I know, and it saddens me that civilisation never reached some parts of the
world.

If we'd hung on to Calais and Aquitaine, things might be different.

[DVH]

"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v1c187p5ru11i7njd...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:32:11 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:e86c5111-e313-4b7c...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>>>
>>> Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>>>
>>> To suggest this is to make a category error.
>>>
>>> Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to
>>> toddle
>>> along unhindered.
>>
>>> In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
>>> the poor.
>>
>>Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>>millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>>
>>This is a fact, recorded by economists, journalists and academics, and
>>anyone who travels.
>
> Doesn't seem to havelasted
> http://tinyurl.com/6yebtax

Your link doesn't contradict me.

[True Blue]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in message

news:qs2gq.595$jz6...@newsfe18.ams2...

I think we're retaking Pas de Calais, bit by bit...

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Indeed, but erm.. why is this remarkable?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death'
(Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Heard the one about why there are no Belgian tourists in Calais?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

[True Blue]

"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

news:fep6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

Go on.......

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

True Blue <garyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:fep6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

>> Heard the one about why there are no Belgian tourists in Calais?

> Go on.......

'Parce qu'il y a Pas-de-Calais...'

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

[AlanG]

Well that lot have been lifted back into poverty

[DVH]

"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

news:hcp6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
>> news:ien6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...
>>> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "True Blue" <garyb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:i92dnb2vO-rTOB3T...@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, the number of poor people is falling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this dramatic collision between your claim and my fact, I wonder
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> will come off unscathed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I fear you are wasting your time, Mr H. Our man has the wisdom of the
>>>>> staffroom and nought else....
>>>>
>>>> What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.
>>>
>>> Why is that 'remarkable'?
>>
>> Thirty years ago they were eating worms.
>>
>> Now, a decent proportion of their population have western living
>> standards
>> and it looks likely that the trend will continue just as fast if not
>> faster.
>
> Indeed, but erm.. why is this remarkable?

Individuals may occasionally go from rags to riches. Moving a billion people
from worms to Mercedes in a few decades has no historical precedent.

[HardySpicer]

On Sep 27, 3:20 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>

> As opposed to pretty much every other system, which have all been in
> the dumper for decades.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

I forgot to add that I do not propose communism or extreme socialism
either. What we need is something completely new.
What it is I have no idea at present. the present system only works
for the minority. The worlds richest people own 35% of the wealth.
Before Thatcher and Raygun it was 20%. It increased to 35% in 10 years
but the poorer did not get any richer.

In Britain and in the US, you have austerity measures to pay these
people at the top of the financial food chain. The best thing that
could happen is
for countries to default on their loans and start again from scratch.
There will be a depression of sorts, but we'll get by. This happened
in the 20s I think with the gold standard.

Hardy

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

A billion people, eh?

You sure about that?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'It is hard to see how the Arab world, still less the Arabs of
Fakestine, will suffer from what is mere recognition of accomplished
fact - the presence in Fakestine of a compact, well organized, and
virtually autonomous Jewish community'
(_The Times_ editorial, 01 December 1947)
<http://yitzhakineretz.wordpress.com/>

[HardySpicer]

On Sep 27, 5:23 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "True Blue" <garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

It won't last, and they are not exactly capitalist, more a sort of
hybrid system. As they get richer the cost of the workers will rise.
This will mean that it is cheaper
to manufacture goods elsewhere - eg Africa. Their turn next.

Hardy

[HardySpicer]

On Sep 27, 4:32 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:e86c5111-e313-4b7c...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>
> > > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>

> > Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>
> > To suggest this is to make a category error.
>
> > Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to
> > toddle
> > along unhindered.
> > In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
> > the poor.
>
> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>

You see that is often quoted. Visit India and see that this is not the
case. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Asia has improved its lot,
but this is down to the US deficit!
There is a lie that is told, work hard and you will get rich. Not
true. You either need to get lucky or know the right people.


Hardy

[DVH]

"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

news:dir6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

I'm sure you're going to get picky about numbers.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:32 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?

> You see that is often quoted. Visit India and see that this is not the
> case.

It's the Big Lie of the 'trickle-down effect'. In reality, a billion
Chinese will never have a Mercedes. You will get a tiny percentile of the
population who can afford them, and the rest will live with a fifth-hand
Mondeo.

Indeed, even if the 'trickle-down effect' were reality (which it obviously
isn't), it would still reduce the vast majority of the world to the status
of a hungry dog, begging for scraps of food at the master's banquet table.

That might be acceptable for the family pet, but it's completely
unacceptable to make humans live that way.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid
individuals in circulation'
(Carlo M. Cipolla (1922 - 2000))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[DVH]

"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message

news:ibf187hae13satg9r...@4ax.com...

Yes.

[DVH]

"HardySpicer" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e4b2b5b-32e5-4854...@t11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 27, 3:20 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>
> As opposed to pretty much every other system, which have all been in
> the dumper for decades.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine

> I forgot to add that I do not propose communism or extreme socialism
> either. What we need is something completely new.
> What it is I have no idea at present. the present system only works
> for the minority. The worlds richest people own 35% of the wealth.
> Before Thatcher and Raygun it was 20%. It increased to 35% in 10 years
> but the poorer did not get any richer.

Since you're probably never going to define "poor", rest assured your
assertions will go unchallenged and you can continue yacking away
undisturbed.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

I daresay there are statistics out there, but I can't be bothered looking.
I shall, however, stick my neck out and suggest that all of the population
of China won't be brought from 'worms to Mercedes'. This in fact,
validates my original point in this thread, namely that capitalism exists
as a system to enrichen a tiny minority of people who live off the fat and
labour of the overwhelming majority. See my response up there ^^^. A
couple of tens of thousands will get rich, and the rest will be left to eat
a bowl of rice every two days, and to STFU. If their masters decide it,
they'll get tossed a bone, and the former will then laud the 'wealth' that
has been created.

That's capitalism.

We obviously have different definitions concerning the 'success' of an
economic system.

[DVH]

"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

news:89t6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

> HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 4:32 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>>> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>>> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>
>> You see that is often quoted. Visit India and see that this is not the
>> case.
>
> It's the Big Lie of the 'trickle-down effect'.

Attaining some degree of wealth has nothing to do with the trickle-down
effect, regardless of wich of the five definitions of trickle-down effect
you pick.

[DVH]

"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

news:2kt6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

I will agree with that.

I'm sorry you took me literally.

> This in fact,
> validates my original point in this thread, namely that capitalism exists
> as a system to enrichen a tiny minority of people who live off the fat and
> labour of the overwhelming majority. See my response up there ^^^. A
> couple of tens of thousands will get rich, and the rest will be left to
> eat
> a bowl of rice every two days, and to STFU. If their masters decide it,
> they'll get tossed a bone, and the former will then laud the 'wealth' that
> has been created.
>
> That's capitalism.
>
> We obviously have different definitions concerning the 'success' of an
> economic system.

Chairman Mao made a success of the economy. Everybody except the useless
eaters in government went hungry equally.

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:35:52 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 4:32 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>>> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>>> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>
>> You see that is often quoted. Visit India and see that this is not the
>> case.
>
>It's the Big Lie of the 'trickle-down effect'. In reality, a billion
>Chinese will never have a Mercedes. You will get a tiny percentile of the
>population who can afford them, and the rest will live with a fifth-hand
>Mondeo.

which is better than a scrofulous donkey...
(present company excused)


--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

> news:2kt6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

>> This in fact, validates my original point in this thread, namely that
>> capitalism exists as a system to enrichen a tiny minority of people who
>> live off the fat and labour of the overwhelming majority. See my
>> response up there ^^^. A couple of tens of thousands will get rich,
>> and the rest will be left to eat a bowl of rice every two days, and to
>> STFU. If their masters decide it, they'll get tossed a bone, and the
>> former will then laud the 'wealth' that has been created.
>>
>> That's capitalism.
>>
>> We obviously have different definitions concerning the 'success' of an
>> economic system.

> Chairman Mao made a success of the economy. Everybody except the useless
> eaters in government went hungry equally.

Exactly.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

[JNugent]

On 26/09/2011 11:00, sutartsorric wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:25 am, "True Blue"<garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In 1993, when I applied for a
>> mortgage that was 3.7 times more than my income, I was refused on the
>> grounds that the bank would have to break BoE rules in order to lend me the
>> money. When, in 1997, we elected pyramid scheme salesmen to run the country,
>> the banking system had its brakes disconnected.
>
>
> You were refused 3.7 times your income in 1993? A sign of the times.
>
> In 1975 when I applied for a mortgage the limit was 2.5 times income
> and I was required to have had a certain credit balance with the
> particular building society for at least a year.
>
> The implication is always that the banks are wholly responsible for
> the credit crisis, but the borrowing public must also take a fair
> share of the blame. No one forced them to have a 100% mortgage of 5
> times their income.

Absolutely.

Some of us (no names, no pack-drill) had no debt of any sort other than a
small mortgage when the UK economy went belly-up under Brown, Balls and the
hapless Darling.

IOW, we'd lived and continued to love within our means and were uninvolved in
causing Brown's Bust.

> Greed is where we all fall down. We (ok - most of us) want the most
> expensive and up to date items of the consumer society and we want
> them now, but that attitude comes at a very high price down the line,
> and we are paying it now.

Even the minority who don't fit that description are paying for it by seeing
savings inflated away with insulting levels of interest. It's almost as
though the government thought the over-heated economy was our fault.

[JNugent]

On 26/09/2011 11:29, Farmer Giles wrote:
> "sutartsorric"<sutart...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:010c2ad0-d18a-49dd...@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 26, 10:25 am, "True Blue"<garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In 1993, when I applied for a
>> mortgage that was 3.7 times more than my income, I was refused on the
>> grounds that the bank would have to break BoE rules in order to lend me
>> the
>> money. When, in 1997, we elected pyramid scheme salesmen to run the
>> country,
>> the banking system had its brakes disconnected.
>
>
> You were refused 3.7 times your income in 1993? A sign of the times.
>
> In 1975 when I applied for a mortgage the limit was 2.5 times income
> and I was required to have had a certain credit balance with the
> particular building society for at least a year.
>
> The implication is always that the banks are wholly responsible for
> the credit crisis, but the borrowing public must also take a fair
> share of the blame. No one forced them to have a 100% mortgage of 5
> times their income.
>

> Greed is where we all fall down. We (ok - most of us) want the most
> expensive and up to date items of the consumer society and we want
> them now, but that attitude comes at a very high price down the line,
> and we are paying it now.
>

> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Actually, people *are* forced to borrow. In fact they're forced to borrow
> more and more. That's the way the corrupt banking system works. I suggest
> you study it a wee bit.

I, OTOH, am forced to borrow nothing and find myself actually borrowing less
and less (currently in overall credit, even with a - small - mortgage).

How am I getting away with it?

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Oops, edited this bit out by mistake..

DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

> news:2kt6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

>>> I'm sure you're going to get picky about numbers.

>> I daresay there are statistics out there, but I can't be bothered
>> looking. I shall, however, stick my neck out and suggest that all of
>> the population of China won't be brought from 'worms to Mercedes'.

> I will agree with that.
>
> I'm sorry you took me literally.

I didn't take you quite literally. Well, not really. But it demonstrates
amply what I postulated in my original follow-up: that capitalism exists
purely to allow a small minority who own (*wince*...) capital, to use it to
exploit...

Well, anyway. You get the idea. I'm off to put the kettle on.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'I know it's a great tradition of the British left to support
Palestine, but when you come up against this question, you can feel the
intelligence and balance leaving the hall with a shriek, and people
getting into this endocrinal state about Israel...I know we're supposed
to be grown up about it and not fling around accusations of
anti-Semitism, but I don't see any other explanation. It's a
secularised anti-Semitism'
(British writer Martin Amis, quoted in the Independent)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[DVH]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:9ec04s...@mid.individual.net...

>
> IOW, we'd lived and continued to love within our means

Sweet.

[JNugent]

On 26/09/2011 15:55, Akins of that Ilk wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH"<d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>> "Akins of that Ilk"<the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>>
>>
>>
>>> Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>>

>> Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>>
>> To suggest this is to make a category error.
>>
>> Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to toddle
>> along unhindered.
>
> In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of

> the poor. The poor are the ones who keep the capitalist system going,
> since they pay more for things and spend a far greater percentage of
> their income than do the rich. Because of the built-in disadvantage,
> the capitalist system ends up choking itself to death as the poor are
> squeezed harder and harder so that they have less and less money to
> spend, which leads to recession, and less new money coming in for the
> wealthy to hoard.

Did you never hear that the Soviet Union and the rest of the socialist states
of their eastern European empire collapsed under the weight of their own
inherent contradictions?

It's over twenty years ago...

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:02:42 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 27, 3:20 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>>
>> As opposed to pretty much every other system, which have all been in
>> the dumper for decades.
>>
>> --
>> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>>  only stupid."
>>                             -- Heinrich Heine
>
>I forgot to add that I do not propose communism or extreme socialism
>either. What we need is something completely new.

a magic wand?

>What it is I have no idea at present. the present system only works
>for the minority. The worlds richest people own 35% of the wealth.
>Before Thatcher and Raygun it was 20%. It increased to 35% in 10 years
>but the poorer did not get any richer.
>
>In Britain and in the US, you have austerity measures to pay these
>people at the top of the financial food chain. The best thing that
>could happen is
>for countries to default on their loans

they are defaulting in slow motion

>and start again from scratch.
>There will be a depression of sorts, but we'll get by. This happened
>in the 20s I think with the gold standard.

eventually everyone went off the gold standard...another
form of default

[JNugent]

:-)

Saw it.

Couldn't do anything about it.

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:58:38 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

and the clown and balls and milipede's wonderland....
and greece in the eussr's wonderland...next please

regards

>It's over twenty years ago...

[Akins of that Ilk]

> It's over twenty years ago...- Hide quoted text -

Due mainly to their inability to keep up with the U.S. in the nuclear
arms race. It was paying for all those Intercontinental Ballistic
warheads that caused the Soviet economy to collapse.

[Osric]

On 26/09/11 10:25, True Blue wrote:
> "HardySpicer"<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:0c433005-598b-41cf...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> Discuss!
>>
>> It seems that the general idea is to prop up banks and large
>> corporations and bugger everybody else. The ordinary taxpayer has to
>> pay their debts. The majority of the world is still poor and lives on
>> less than 2 US dollars a day.
>> The rich are getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. The
>> experiment has failed. So many people are in credit it should be
>> called Creditism.
>>
>> Hardy
>
> We are so immersed in capitalism, that we forget what is actually is.
>
> Capitalism is competition and competition is a core trait of human nature.

So is fucking everything you can get your hands on and an inbuilt
proclivity for sugar fat and salt. The problem humans have is that their
brains have provided the capacity to alter their circumstances quicker
than they can evolve. Consequently giving free reign to characteristics
like the food ones above designed for a world where these food groups
were scarce is destructive. Since these limitations are no longer
provided by our environment, it is necessary to create the balance
ourselves.

> All other systems (and let's face it, they're all variants of socialism),
> seek to excessively curb competition (and therefore "incentive") to "aid"
> the weak.

Humans developed language and many other traits that have allowed them
to become so sophisticated because they found co-operating and altruism
to be a good survival technique. Designing a system that focuses one a
trait that is designed to be in balance with its opposite is foolish.
Consequently a system that is based on eliminating competition is just
as idiotic as one that focuses on competition and amounts to a diet of
Big Macs.

This ignores the fact that those who are the most competitive, are
> the ones who have driven up the living standards of *all* the people in
> capitalist countries, over the last 150 years.

Not necessarily. It is the balance between the go-getters and risk
takers and those who are steady and reliable that makes for successful
societies.

Try mowing your lawn,
> cleaning your house, washing and drying your clothes, all in a Saturday
> morning, to leave the rest of the weekend free for leisure, with the tools
> available to a Soviet household of 1990.

Time to maintain your house which of course the state will not do for
you, and time to fit in overtime if interest rates go up and your
mortgage becomes unaffordable.

>
> The current opportunistic hysteria, amongst some claiming "capitalism is
> dead", can be compared to having a car's brakes disabled and concluding,
> upon the inevitable crash, that cars are not viable and it's time to walk
> everywhere again.

Indeed so, time in fact to design a car with brakes as well as an
accelerator. Communism is a car with only brakes, Capitalism is a car
with only an accelerator.

It also exposes the myopia of those who regard capitalism
> as banking and banking as capitalism. Capitalism is the means of production
> and the provision of service in the hands of competing entities.
> Notwithstanding a certain case for natural monopolies, putting this
> provision in the hands of dis-incentivised, uncompetive State monoliths is a
> recipe for disaster.

So apparently is the reverse.

>
> Banking is merely a component of capitalism. In 1993, when I applied for a

> mortgage that was 3.7 times more than my income, I was refused on the
> grounds that the bank would have to break BoE rules in order to lend me the
> money. When, in 1997, we elected pyramid scheme salesmen to run the country,
> the banking system had its brakes disconnected.

Because it was the received wisdom of the chief proponents of unfettered
capitalism, which is why George Bush's America and Britain did much the
same thing and ended up in much the same mess.

Capitalism as envisaged over the last 30 years is indeed dead, as is its
communist alter ego. The critiques of each by the other have merit, its
the one sided solutions that are the problem. Human life is a
compromise, a balance and a fudge and anyone who has a reductive formula
that provides the answer is too stupid to even understand the question.

--
Osric

THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET

[Osric]

On 26/09/11 10:21, DVH wrote:
> "HardySpicer"<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0c433005-598b-41cf...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> Discuss!
>>
>> It seems that the general idea is to prop up banks and large
>> corporations and bugger everybody else. The ordinary taxpayer has to
>> pay their debts. The majority of the world is still poor and lives on
>> less than 2 US dollars a day.
>> The rich are getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. The
>> experiment has failed. So many people are in credit it should be
>> called Creditism.
>>
>> Hardy
>>
>

> 1) Capitalism isn't an experiment. It's the upholding of the right to use
> and profit from one's own capital freely - whether that means one's brains
> and muscles (human capital) or one's money (financial capital). This may be
> difficult to understand because many other -isms (eg communism) are projects
> involving restrictions. Capitalism is an anti-project.

Fine principles, of course they disappear in the application.

>
> 2) If "the general idea" of policy is to prop up banks, then the policy is
> not capitalism and you're looking in the wrong place.

The USSR is not real communism defence "if my determinist utopia isn't
working its because you're doing it wrong", so speaks the commissar from
the ruins of the Berlin wall

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 7:50 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote in messagenews:2kt6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...
>
>
>
> > DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

> >>news:dir6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...
> >>> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>

> >>>> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

> >>>>news:hcp6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...
> >>>>> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>

> >>>>>> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

> >>>>>>news:ien6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...
> >>>>>>> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>> "True Blue" <garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I have a vision (after the bomb, it isn't going to happen now) of
something like large Institutions housing people.
There is no money and everybody works according to their abilities.
Food is provided for everybody,medical etc.
Children are cared for through the day. Everything they need is shared
or made on site. I see this as a high-tech commune. (assuming high
technology is still around). Running it will be elders voted into
power. (too old to do ordinary work). It will be a place of study too,
not a hippy commune. There will be no religion or prayers. There will
be farmland surrounding it for raw materials, wool etc for spinning
and weaving. The place will be protected against intruders. There will
be law and order and murderers will be vaped!

Hardy

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

That's because the Soviet Union was never 'socialist'. Nor were any of its
'satellite' states.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'We do not have to apologize for anything. We are a people as all other
peoples; we do not have any intentions to be better than the rest. As
one of the first conditions for equality we demand the right to have
our own villains, exactly as other people have them. ... We do not have
to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody's examination and
nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and
will leave after them...'
(Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880 - 1940))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[FACE]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:15:25 -0700 (PDT), in uk.politics.misc, killwhang
<gyans...@gmail.com>, wrote

I imagine "Hardy" has gotten used to being laughed at.

[DVH]

"Osric" <os...@nospambtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:y4GdnTFc29ZMUB3T...@bt.com...

You're still seeing it, incorrectly, as a scheme.

You don't "do" capitalism. It has no utopia at the back of its mind.

It happens, if you let it.

You barbarous lot are so brainwashed into thinking that every activity must
be a project, when it's the opposite of a project. And that's its beauty: it
doesn't demand that you participate if you don't want to. Go away and barter
with the baker (if your socialist government will let you opt out of *its*
scheme).

[Farmer Giles]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message

news:9ec07g...@mid.individual.net...

Because someone else is doing your borrowing for you. That means that if
'people' stopped borrowing more and more the system would grind to a halt -
which includes you.

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:13:31 +0100, Ishvara <ish...@nospam.com>
wrote:


>As you suggest, much of human evolution has been the result primarily of
>co-operation.

yeah, cooperation to kill that other group down the road

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 5:55 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>
> Also, ignore the Chinese living in the countryside and concentrate on urban
> incomes. (Peasants aren't in the capitalist system).
>

Now you see it's just that attitude that will see the fall of the
system. People are people. They should all have a decent living. These
peasants make the food for the cities.

Hardy

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 8:04 am, Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

That's partly true, though it was pretty rotten too.

[Joe]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:13:31 +0100

Ishvara <ish...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 2011-09-26 20:08, Osric wrote:
> >
> > Humans developed language and many other traits that have allowed
> > them to become so sophisticated because they found co-operating and
> > altruism to be a good survival technique.

This is only the case when freeloaders can be ejected from the system,
or at least denied the economic products of other peoples' co-operation.
In other words, when those who are co-operating can form a society,
which is no longer possible in socialist economies. Note that
co-operation pre-dated socialism by many millennia, though it appears a
single century was enough to wipe it out across much of the planet.

>
> As you suggest, much of human evolution has been the result primarily

> of co-operation. We now have an environment in which international
> cliques co-operate to inhibit co-operation among the majority.

The major inhibition I see to co-operation is the insistence of
governments that freeloaders should be not merely tolerated, but
positively privileged. There is no way such a system can be stable,
though a previously viable system may take decades to collapse.
Large scale international socialism, such as the Soviet and European
Unions, ensures that the collapse will be widespread, possibly
worldwide this time.


> Most of the threat to the European economy has come through
> being too charitable to irresponsible immigrants, and through
> exposure to the feudal economies of the UK and US.

Europe is currently approaching self-destruction because of the gross
and irresponsible overspending of some of its governments, presumably
in order to buy electoral popularity. This has required massive
borrowing which leads at the very least to enormous interest payments,
and at worst to even larger defaults.

The Euro is not the cause of this overspending, but it does make
recovery from an overspent condition very difficult for its
subscribers. The people whose votes have been bought will not tolerate
difficulty on the necessary scale. Or so they think.

>
> > Capitalism as envisaged over the last 30 years is indeed dead, as
> > is its communist alter ego. The critiques of each by the other have
> > merit, its the one sided solutions that are the problem.
>

Capitalism cannot survive theft on the scale of the last few years,
and it wasn't productive capitalists who did the stealing. Civilisation
requires at a very minimum the enforcement of the concept of private
property. Otherwise agriculture becomes impossible, and without
agriculture we are all hunter-gatherers. I believe the planet is too
highly populated for that mode of existence to be practical.

--
Joe

[Akins of that Ilk]

I agree, the object of economics shouldn't be for a segment of the
population to gather more wealth to themselves than everyone else has;
it should be for productivity to be maximized and shared by everyone
alike.

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:42:24 +0100, Ishvara <ish...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 2011-09-26 22:17, abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:13:31 +0100, Ishvara<ish...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As you suggest, much of human evolution has been the result primarily of
>>> co-operation.
>>
>> yeah, cooperation to kill that other group down the road
>

>Nope. Co-operation to at least survive, and often thrive, in hostile
>environments. Co-operation in hunting and gathering, sharing knowledge
>about local dangers and food sources and other resources, sharing ideas
>for new building techniques, navigation, food storage. All long before
>money, and long before politicians, judges, police and bankers poisoned
>humanity's well.

don't a daft romantic...
they even ate each other and hunted heads

[abelard]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:36:41 -0700 (PDT), Akins of that Ilk
<the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 26, 4:28 pm, killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 5:55 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Also, ignore the Chinese living in the countryside and concentrate on urban
>> > incomes. (Peasants aren't in the capitalist system).
>>
>> Now you see it's just that attitude that will see the fall of the
>> system. People are people. They should all have a decent living. These
>> peasants make the food for the cities.

>I agree, the object of economics shouldn't be for a segment of the
>population to gather more wealth to themselves than everyone else has;
>it should be for productivity to be maximized and shared by everyone
>alike.

you damned commies never learn...

the politicians gather more power to themselves....
you want that 'shared out'?
if you 'share out the productivity', you don't invest....

only dumb socialists believe they can consume without producing...
those idiots are the constituency of the socialist 'new' labour
machine...wholly owned by the featherbedded unproductive unions

[Joe]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:28:30 +0100
"Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >

> > How am I getting away with it?
>
> Because someone else is doing your borrowing for you. That means that
> if 'people' stopped borrowing more and more the system would grind to
> a halt - which includes you.
>
>

You can't apologise on someone else's behalf, you can't promise on
someone else's behalf, you can't be generous on someone else's behalf,
and you certainly can't lend or borrow on someone else's behalf. Those
are all personal behaviours. The people responsible for the borrowing
have done so solely for their own benefit, completely reckless as to
the harm done to other people by it.

The system would most certainly not grind to a halt without massive
borrowing if the size of the public sector had not been bloated by
successive governments, and if the government had kept real interest
rates at practical levels. I'd be very surprised if more than a
quarter of tax receipts were spent in ways that significantly benefit
those other than the public sector employees themselves.

I can't speak for Mr Nugent, but I most certainly have not demanded
that the government should become so bloated, and it seems most unlikely
that I will benefit in any way from the bloat. I will be surprised if
in my later non-productive years I am offered public services at even
the standard of the 1950s, let alone in keeping with today's costs.

--
Joe

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:16:59 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>
>"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:df16c94d-f315-4fb6...@q25g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

>On Sep 26, 12:04 pm, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>> "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote in

>> messagenews:ien6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "True Blue" <garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:i92dnb2vO-rTOB3T...@giganews.com...
>>
>> >>>> Meanwhile, the number of poor people is falling.
>>
>> >>>> In this dramatic collision between your claim and my fact, I wonder
>> >>>> which
>> >>>> will come off unscathed?
>>
>> >>> I fear you are wasting your time, Mr H. Our man has the wisdom of the
>> >>> staffroom and nought else....
>>
>> >> What's really remarkable is how well the Chinese have done.
>>
>> > Why is that 'remarkable'?
>>
>> Thirty years ago they were eating worms.
>

>> They are _still_ eating snails in France....
>
>I know, and it saddens me that civilisation never reached some parts of the
>world.
>
>If we'd hung on to Calais and Aquitaine, things might be different.
>

Yes. Even more Muslims, Polacks, Pakas, Roma etc...!

What was REALLY needed was a firing up of the Cinque Ports, all armed
with cannon, tear gas and sea mines. Am I stooopid or were you
invaded good and proper during the interregnum of Anthony Blair??

[JNugent]

Are you denying that socialism collapsed because of the inherent
contradictions within it?

[JNugent]

What?

They can stop right now. I do not require them to borrow on my behalf.

And anyway, where's the money they're borrowing for me? I haven't seen a bean
of it. They can bugger off if they think I'm going to pay it back willingly.

[Osric]

Determinist, materialist Rostovian vulgar-Marxist inspired twaddle.
Capitalism is not a law of nature, it is regulated and has rules or it
does not function, and it is a product of human engineered systems. How
you engineer the system goes a long way in determining who ends up with
the pie.

>
> You barbarous lot are so brainwashed

You're the one with the ludicrous algorithm. Its no accident you sound
like a proselytising socialist worker activist with the same glib
answers trotted out according to the mantra because its an approach
firmly rooted in Marxist dialectical materialism.

into thinking that every activity must
> be a project, when it's the opposite of a project. And that's its beauty: it
> doesn't demand that you participate if you don't want to. Go away and barter
> with the baker (if your socialist government will let you opt out of *its*
> scheme).

Whatever you say, comrade.

[Scotty]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:28:58 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Socialism (as presently defined) collapsed because it's not sustainable.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six,
result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty
pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is
withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and, in short,
you are for ever floored.

Mr Macawber rulez....

[Akins of that Ilk]

> contradictions within it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I don't consider Communism the same as Socialism, so no, what was
going on in the Soviet Union was not Socialist What FDR wanted would
have been a lot closer to Socialism, but it was never put in place:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-
evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under
which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all
—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops
or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must
be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to
new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for
all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting
peace in the world."

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 11:31 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 21:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
>
>
>

> > "JNugent"<jennings...@fastmail.fm>  wrote in message

> >news:9ec07g...@mid.individual.net...
> >> On 26/09/2011 11:29, Farmer Giles wrote:

> >>> "sutartsorric"<sutartsor...@googlemail.com>   wrote in message

It doesn't go back to you, it goes to bankers. They should have
nationalised the banks.

Hardy

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 12:40 pm, Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:28:58 +0100, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm>

Capitalism, like Communism is seariusly flawed in the real world. In
theory they should work but practice is different.
For example, for capitalism to work you need competition. This is
increasingly becoming rarer as large corporations buy up the smaller
ones.
In milk in NZ they used to have smaller milk producers, they then all
linked together to form Fonterra which fixes prices!! No competition
at all.
I would rather the price was fixed by government than private
companies, we can vote governments out. Same for electricity, what
real choice do you have?
It's not capitalism, I don't know what it is but it ain't capitilism.

Hardy

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 3:46 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
> >> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>
> >Coincidence.  That is not the aim of capitalism.  Its aim is to enrich the
> >few at the expense of the many.  That is - by and large - what it does, and
> >the fact that some who were never meant to benefit from it in fact _do_
> >benefit, is in no way a 'justification' for a system whose very existence
> >is dependent on the creation of a deprived underclass.
>
> Utter hogwash.  A remarkable display of ignorance.
>
>
>
> >Nor is there any evidence that capitalism 'does better' than Communism,
> >because there has never been a state on the planet which has practiced
> >Communism.
>
> For good reason.  And just why do you think that is?
>
> --
It is impossible to run such a state without totalitarism.
Practically it can never work, Now Capatalism is more appealing
to the greedy and not the needy! Trouble is that it doesn't work in
the long term either - as we see recenty.


Hardy

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 8:04 am, Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com>

Partly, but also because it just isn't tight to send people to prison
for their political beliefs and to fence in their own people!
Not saying that communism didn't have some good points. transport was
cheap (public) books, food. (not in Poland though).


Hardy

[killwhang]

On Sep 27, 8:40 am, FACE <AFaceInTheCr...@today.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:15:25 -0700 (PDT),  in uk.politics.misc,  killwhang

> <gyansor...@gmail.com>, wrote

What's funny?

[killwhang]

Socialism is alive and well. I assume you mean Communism.

Hardy

[DVH]

"killwhang" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e0eed9c-9b24-4da0...@k10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

Well... if you've dragged yourself out of your midden by 9am this morning,
you can listen to Michael Portillo putting capitalism "on trial".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0150p5l

[DVH]

"killwhang" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a18a29f0-26c4-46f9...@c11g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

Socialism is communism before it's bought a machine gun.

[True Blue]

On Sep 26, 6:42 pm, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> True Blue <garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message

> >news:fep6l8-...@yahoo.co.il...
> >> Heard the one about why there are no Belgian tourists in Calais?
> > Go on.......
>
> 'Parce qu'il y a Pas-de-Calais...'

<groan> ;-)

[DVH]

"Osric" <os...@nospambtinternet.com> wrote in message

news:y4GdnTBc29ZTkRzT...@bt.com...

You've got me wrong.

The reality I observe is a chaotic cosmos, not a road to somewhere.

I see no engine of history. I'm with Heraclitus: "This world did none of
gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an ever living
fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures"

But I did enjoy your 1920s rhetoric.

[Farmer Giles]

"Joe" <j...@jretrading.com> wrote in message
news:20110926230...@jretrading.com...

I'm afraid you are another who does not have a clue how the system works.
Borrowing and increasing debt - for both individuals and governments - are
an inevitable consequence of the present fraudulent debt money-creation
scheme, which masquerades as banking. People most certainly do borrow on
your behalf, because if they didn't there would be no money in circulation
for either you or them. Difficult to grasp I accept, but true nevertheless.
I suggest you study the subject and report back.

[Farmer Giles]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message

news:9eccq9...@mid.individual.net...

I'm afraid you do. As long as we have the present fraudulent banking systems
in operation, and as long as the government leaves money creation purely in
the hands of private banks you will do. What you clearly don't understand is
that virtually every pound in circulation is created by banks through debt,
and if people stopped borrowing the economy wouldn't function as we know it.
And people don't necessarily borrow to fund extravagant lifestyles, they do
so out of necessity.

> And anyway, where's the money they're borrowing for me? I haven't seen a
> bean of it. They can bugger off if they think I'm going to pay it back
> willingly.

You most certainly have seen the money they borrowed for you, it's right
there in your pocket. Borrowing and debt are a necessarily part of the
present system. Something which you clearly haven't grasped.

[AlanG]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:36:15 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ibf187hae13satg9r...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:18:25 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:v1c187p5ru11i7njd...@4ax.com...

>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:32:11 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>>>news:e86c5111-e313-4b7c...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>On Sep 26, 9:17 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> messagenews:099653f7-83fb-4ab0...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Capitalism may not be dead, but it is certainly killing the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Capitalism cannot "kill" the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To suggest this is to make a category error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Capitalism *is* the economy - or at least that part of it allowed to
>>>>>> toddle
>>>>>> along unhindered.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the capitalist system, the rich gain their wealth at the expense of
>>>>>> the poor.
>>>>>

>>>>>Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
>>>>>millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?
>>>>>

>>>>>This is a fact, recorded by economists, journalists and academics, and
>>>>>anyone who travels.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't seem to havelasted
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6yebtax
>>>
>>>Your link doesn't contradict me.
>>>
>> Well that lot have been lifted back into poverty
>>
>
>Yes.
>
Capitalism impoverishes

[True Blue]

On Sep 26, 7:35 pm, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Sep 27, 4:32 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> >> Then how do you explain that with the triumph of capitalism, hundreds of
> >> millions of people have been lifted out of poverty?

> > You see that is often quoted. Visit India and see that this is not the
> > case.
>
> It's the Big Lie of the 'trickle-down effect'.  In reality, a billion
> Chinese will never have a Mercedes.  You will get a tiny percentile of the
> population who can afford them, and the rest will live with a fifth-hand
> Mondeo.  

A huge improvement in their lot, then.