# Capitalism is dead and needs a reboot



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

To sell his new book Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff argues that companies have been too focused on shareholders at the expense of employees, customers and the communities they serve.

When you look beyond shareholders, “Your customer’s not a product, they’re a stakeholder,” Benioff said. “Your employee’s not a cog in your wheel, they’re a stakeholder. And kids aren’t people you’re driving by on your way to work, they’re a stakeholder. And homeless aren’t people you’re walking by, they’re your stakeholders.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/marc-benioff-salesforce-co-ceo-cnbc-trailblazers-interview.html


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

GM, and the strike they are currently suffering is a good example.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I made my billions, so time to put some restrictions on my competitors!


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

HDRider said:


> To sell his new book Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff argues that companies have been too focused on shareholders at the expense of employees, customers and the communities they serve.
> 
> When you look beyond shareholders, “Your customer’s not a product, they’re a stakeholder,” Benioff said. “Your employee’s not a cog in your wheel, they’re a stakeholder. And kids aren’t people you’re driving by on your way to work, they’re a stakeholder. And homeless aren’t people you’re walking by, they’re your stakeholders.”
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/marc-benioff-salesforce-co-ceo-cnbc-trailblazers-interview.html


What is your opinion on the subject?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> What is your opinion on the subject?


It sounds like the result of too many Margaritas.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It sounds like the result of too many Margaritas.


I have never had a Margarita? What do they taste like?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Ever worked for an employee owned business?
Not popular because there is a segment that calls that 'Socialism'.

Henry Ford paid skilled workers 5x the normal day wage, $5 a day instead of $1 a day.
Ford grew into a powerhouse that congress wanted to break up as a Monopoly because his $5 a day workers innovated the industry beyond anything anyone thought was possible.

It's pretty pointless to argue against capitalism and for free market since the thread will get bombarded by people believing capitalism is the opposite of Communism will get the thread locked or deleted.

At least someone (anyone) is paying attention to work force and free market opposed by Capitalism is encouraging.
An idea is a seed, if it grows or not depends on how open a mind the person has.
Every mighty oak started a little nut, ideas often come from people called a 'Nut'...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I have never had a Margarita?


I'm not sure why you're asking that question.
I couldn't possibly know the answer.



nchobbyfarm said:


> What do they taste like?


It makes no difference in this context what one tastes like.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> What is your opinion on the subject?


Not sure what your specific question is, but you might have recognized, I have no shortage of opinions.

1. Government action corrupts capitalism, so that is not a solution.
2. Altruism often gets lost in capitalist activities. 
3. The societal ideals that work best are the teachings of Christ.

How's that?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Not sure what your specific question is, but you might have recognized, I have no shortage of opinions.
> 
> 1. Government action corrupts capitalism, so that is not a solution.
> 2. Altruism often gets lost in capitalist activities.
> ...


Thank you for stating your opinion, and such an interesting one!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for stating your opinion, and such an interesting one!


You are very welcome.

I am glad it enlightened you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You are very welcome.
> 
> I am glad it enlightened you.


Never said enlightened, but you knew that... Have a wonderful day.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Never said enlightened, but you knew that... Have a wonderful day.


I view being interested as a good first step toward enlightenment. 

You have a good day too.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Not sure what your specific question is, but you might have recognized, I have no shortage of opinions.
> 
> 1. Government action corrupts capitalism, so that is not a solution.


That's backwards. Capitalism corrupts government.

So the purist form of Capitalism would be without government?
Or if the government were the Capitalists wouldn't we call that slavery or communism since all work product flows to the top?



> 2. Altruism often gets lost in capitalist activities.


Is it altruism if you only do it as a PR stunt or for a tax break where there is gain for you?



> 3. The societal ideals that work best are the teachings of Christ.


Most economists will tell you Capitalism is a 'Religion' of it's own.
It's a belief system, that by the way, is opposite to commonly held morality and ethics beliefs from religious teachings.

Without attacking the christiain or any religion,
An anlytical review of the bible does have morality guidelines/code in parables.
No one argues that.
So does about all religion doctrines, morality isn't exclusive to the cristian religion.

What about the truly horrible stuff in the bible?

Why can't the morality/ethics become laws applied to everyone?
Oh, wait, we did that, it's called the Constitution.

*



How's that?

Click to expand...

Now, before moderators or anyone else jumps up and down about addressing specific quotes,
Keep in mind this poster ASK SPECIFICALLY, (with a question mark behind "How's That?") FOR COMMENTS.*
Also notice there is no personal attack on the poster, simply answering the question ask directly by the poster.
----------
1. You blamed government for corruption of Capitalism when it's clearly money from Capitalists that corrupts government.

2. You should look up the meaning of altruism.

3. You introduced religion, a specific religion into a discussion of an economic business model (Capitalism).
You deflected/misdirected the discussion of 'Capitalism' with a statement about 'Society' and a specific religion.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> It's pretty pointless to argue against capitalism and for free market since the thread will get bombarded by people believing capitalism is the opposite of Communism will get the thread locked or deleted.
> 
> At least someone (anyone) is paying attention to work force and free market opposed by Capitalism is encouraging.
> An idea is a seed, if it grows or not depends on how open a mind the person has.
> Every mighty oak started a little nut, ideas often come from people called a 'Nut'...


weird
This nation was formed with communism and seems quite happy with it today.
I mean after all most towns now have a community building paid for by the government where obviously we can get together and commune.
Lots of community water companies community electric companies etc.
Commun ity seems to be quite popular.
Commun isum On the other hand not so much.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> weird
> This nation was formed with communism and seems quite happy with it today.
> I mean after all most towns now have a community building paid for by the government where obviously we can get together and commune.
> Lots of community water companies community electric companies etc.
> ...


I'll probably get the thread deleted or shoved into some dark corner for this, but here goes...

Facts.
"Communism" as an economic model (Karl Marx 1818-1883) didn't exist when this country was founded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Facts.
"Communism" as a system of government didn't exist until Vlaimir Lenin (1870-1924) lead the Russian revolution, and again didn't exist when this country was founded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

Facts.
Latin root word 'Communis', Meaning, "Common, Public, Shared By All".
http://consciouscommunities.blogspot.com/2007/02/roots-of-word-community.html

The modern English root is Old French, 'Comuneté', Meaning "Shared by all", "Shared In Common" or "Public Spirit", and the root word is Latin "Communis".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community

Facts.
What common buildings, common water systems, common sewer systems, common highways etc are...
They are Socialist Contracts between people.
Since people in a democracy don't have a monarch that owns everything, we use social contracts (Socialism) for the common good.

Facts.
Without SOCIAL CONTRACTS a free SOCIETY can not exist.
Without free travel there is no free trade, and since you couldn't cross someone else's claimed land or water, travel stops, and so does trade, any society as we know it collapses, we are back to tribal or singular territories, what ever you personally or your SOCIAL (Tribal) group can defend.

For examples of tribal warlords, look up,
Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somali,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Farrah_Aidid
Rodavan Karadizac in Bosina,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide
Two places I'm intimately familiar with...

Facts.
Karl Marx co-opted the word 'Community' for his utopian 'Communism' ideas, the root word predated Karl Marx by more than 2 millennia, and therefore the use of word 'Community' and the idea of 'Communal' (use by all, public area) has noting at all to do with 'Communism'.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> That's backwards. Capitalism corrupts government.
> 
> So the purist form of Capitalism would be without government?
> Or if the government were the Capitalists wouldn't we call that slavery or communism since all work product flows to the top?
> ...



Lets say I agree with everything you just said. Imagine a debate team and you and I are against the capitalist. 

If Capitalism is bad what would we argue to replace it with? What are our pros?


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

I agree with him. Every company I have worked for has went downhill after going public. Privately owned companies are part of the community they serve. Companies owned by investment banks or public stock seem to inevitably turn low-key "evil"


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Truth found in it's simplest form.

Government is a body or entity.
Capitalism is a system and may also be considered a tool.

Government is by it's nature corrupt.
Repeat that slowly so it sinks down a little.
Government, the group of beings voted/appointed to do what is in your best interests, are by their very nature corrupt.

A system by itself can not and does not corrupt anyone without their own willingness or desire to manipulate that system in a manner that benefits them, ethically, legally, or otherwise.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> Lets say I agree with everything you just said. Imagine a debate team and you and I are against the capitalist.
> 
> If Capitalism is bad what would we argue to replace it with? What are our pros?


I don't do hypotheticals in this area simply because I'm not an educated, trained professionals in any area of the discussion.
(Sociology, Economics, Government or Political Science)

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

It doesn't take a hydrologist to see when the well has gone dry, so I CAN see what ISN'T working...
It takes a trained, educated hydrologist to determine *IF* there is a 'Fix', and if so, what that 'Fix' might be...

I can't tell you what I actually think and back it up with linked facts, that would trigger (emotionally) everyone with an 'Agenda' other than Constitutional and the Constitutionalists wouldn't think I went far enough...

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

To make this PC enough for members & moderators of this forum,

"We The People" are the problem,

We elect Representatives to our government, WE are the bosses & supervisors, we 'Hire' the Representatives and then ignore what they do for decades.
The collective WE failed to do our job as boss and watch voting records, collective fails, personal fails and outright criminal behavior.

The issues and voting records published in the newspaper and reported on local TV/radio stations doesn't happen anymore.

My family, friends, neighbors didn't become baby eating, child molesting, communists/facscists or whatever overnight despite the positions supported by the extremists propaganda.

I know 'Center' and Constitutionalist aren't 'Extreme' enough for people in this overstimulated current society, but I've never been much on 'Fads' or putting up with lies/liars.

How the little widow woman votes up the road votes is none of my business,
When some extremists starts spouting disinformation, misinformation or outright lies in my direction, the extremists makes it my business.

The simple truth is the collective 'We The People' failed,
And when some extremists comes long blaming it on a particular race, religion, political party, or whatever the chosen group to be vilified today is,

The simple truth is we failed to watch our employees, they fell in with a bad crowd (Capitalists), got hooked on drugs (money & power) and the stole the cash box and set the building on fire to make smoke (divisionism) to cover their escape.

No one to blame but 'WE' (ourselves),
And to compound the problem making it even worse, 'We' decided to blame each other (divisionism) instead of dealing with the building on fire.

There is nothing wrong with free travel/trade.
It's not 'Communism'.
There is something very wrong with Capitalism and it was addressed when Capitalism got out of hand the first time, anti-monopoly laws, banking laws, trading in 'Futures'; products you DON'T own, rise of unions/workers rights,
All which 'Capitalist' have undone completely ignoring the lessons of the past, which built the world's first economic 'Middle Class' between slaves/peasants and the 'Capitalist' at the top.

Now everyone wants to divide and blame each other, everyone BUT the Capitalists that suckered working people & presidents alike...
And apparently still are judging by the fervent and irrational defence of capitalists that privatized profits, but dumped losses & expenses on the working class taxpayer...

I freely admit I got duped, young republican and firm Reagan supporter until I saw first hand what Reagan/Capitalists did to the family businesses and economy in general,
Not to mention all the sneaky, illegal crap the Reagan adminstration did that didn't come to light until much later...
Sometimes the mule has to kick you in the head before you learn, and if you can't learn, it's going to continue to hurt A LOT!


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

dyrne said:


> I agree with him. Every company I have worked for has went downhill after going public. Privately owned companies are part of the community they serve. Companies owned by investment banks or public stock seem to inevitably turn low-key "evil"


I agree with your observations.

If you work for a 'Capitalist' company, the sole purpose of that business is to concentrate as much wealth at the top by paying workers as little as possible, while charging what the market will bear for the work product,
Then the workers that do actual production/services has no choice than to unionize to claw back a living wage, benefits, etc.
As 'Capitalists' have demonstrated before, they will NOT pay in actual US currency if they can get away with it, they WILL NOT provide any benefit to employees that would cut into profits concentrated at the top of the can get away with it,
They WILL NOT spend money to make workplaces safer for workers if they can get away with it...

As the OPs article says, the workforce is NOT treated as an asset,
More like expendable waste when compared to just one more dollar in profit.

The other option is an ethically run free market business, and these are 'Niches' in the Capitalists market (opposed to free market).
If your niche gets big enough for Capitalists to take notice, by hook or crook, capitalists will absorb the business or drive it out of business.
It sets a bad example for the 'Capitalism' way of doing things when workers are treated as assets instead of expendable trash.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

There is honest and dishonest, doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing.


Society has skewed perceptions and morals thru perversion wording,.....we assign definitions to words making it more palatable to do bad things.


He did not screw grandma over, he increased his profit margin,......they did not bold face lie, they used progressive marketing...….


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> I don't do hypotheticals in this area simply because I'm not an educated, trained professionals in any area of the discussion.
> (Sociology, Economics, Government or Political Science)
> 
> -------------
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with what you say but we don't really have a pure capitalist economy. We have a mixed economy of both social and capital nuances. The government controls inflation/deflation and it's in the hands of just a few people not _really_ controlled by our elected officials. They also have taken over previous programs that were capitalistic in nature. Like Medicare and SS. These used to be done by pension. 

Then, like you say, we have greedy business that will stop at nothing to make a buck. Then the stock market with micro trading in milliseconds. Doesn't help the little guy either but keeps it stagnant instead. But then again the stockholders are we the people with out 401ks and IRAs. It is our only option at having a pension these days that were dissolved one by one once SS and MC was formed by government. 

It is a complex problem. I don't know the answer either but we do need to make those employees of ours in Washington do their job we pay them to do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> I'll probably get the thread deleted or shoved into some dark corner for this, but here goes...
> 
> Facts.
> "Communism" as an economic model (Karl Marx 1818-1883) didn't exist when this country was founded.
> ...


 Strange when I googled communism wiki told me that it went back to the ancient Greeks and was used by the original Christians
When I study ancient history with an open mind I realize that many of the tribes as far as history goes back we’re communist.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Truth found in it's simplest form.


'Truth' is SUBJECTIVE.
Completely subjective to the 'Belief' system a person has.
'Truth' being subjective to 'Belief', often has nothing to do with provable Facts.



> Government is a body or entity.
> Capitalism is a system and may also be considered a tool.


'Government', or the body of governing rules, are TOOLS for different people/groups to agree on common goals, like defense, trade, travel,
And to define what won't be tolerated, murder for instance.
Since 'Government' is a 'Thing', it's not inherently 'Good' or 'Bad',
The application of rules and ethics of the participants determine if the outcome is viewed as 'Good' or 'Bad' in a subjective manner determined by each person's 'Belief' system.

'Capitalism' is a business model, one of several,
That has been forced upon everyone by a non-appointed, non-elected few, almost always by non-ethical means.



> Government is by it's nature corrupt.


Blanket statement from a subjective 'Belief' system.
The FACT is a government is a 'Thing' no different than a rock, knife or hammer.
Things can't be 'Corrupted', they simply are what they are.

It takes PEOPLE to use them for unethical purposes, in the case of rocks, knives or hammers, that would be murder, the object/thing has no free will.

In the case of government, it would be PEOPLE being corrupted and acting in self interest instead of what they were sent there to do.



> Repeat that slowly so it sinks down a little.


I did, and on face value it doesn't hold up to blame things, government, religion, technology for what PEOPLE do with those things/objects since the things/objects have no free will.



> Government, the group of beings voted/appointed to do what is in your best interests, are by their very nature corrupt.


Again, that is backwards to me,
By 'Beings' you mean humans, since we don't elect anything but humans to office,
Operate the tools in their self interest instead of the interests of the people that placed them into offices of power...
The tool isn't corrupt, the person CAN be corrupt, or the person can start out honest and be corrupted over time.

In any event, it's "We The People" that screwed up...
We 'Hire' or 'Elect' SOMEONE (Human) to do a job, leave them there for decades, with little or no supervision by the 'Boss' (We The People) that hired or elected them, then complain when everything goes down hill.
To compound that mistake, some of us blame the Constitution (an object) and the Government laid out in that Constitution for us NOT paying attention,
Instead of the PEOPLe that have been corrupt for decades, the actual source of the issues everyone wants to complain about, but no one wants to take blame for...



> A system by itself can not and does not corrupt anyone without their own willingness or desire to manipulate that system in a manner that benefits them, ethically, legally, or otherwise.


Again, almost factual...
Without education in the subject, 'We The People' are easily fooled.
The victim of con that's willing to participate for GAIN is participating for personal reasons, but they are victims none the less.
The victims of crimes don't willingly participate in that crime, they are forced to participate by force, robbery for instance, and in no way willing participants.

Banking and trade REGULATORS imposed rules for banking and investments after the 1929 stock market crash,
The elected Representatives took campaign contributions from Capitalists to create laws against the regulations,
Allowing the 2008 real estate and banking crashes, and resulting stock market crash to happen.
That was no accident.

Our elected officials took bribes to create laws contrary to actual, educated & experienced REGULATORS, who did their jobs in creating the regulations in the first place, to keep another market/banking crash from happening...
And the Capitalists paying the bribes had a long term agenda that would otherwise be a criminal enterprise/conspiracy,
To defraud the American public (We The People) of real estate, savings, investments, etc.
It was a criminal enterprise all the way around,
While the political types kept their gains AND their jobs (being reelected), 
The criminal Capitalists kept their trillion in gains, and no one went to jail,
The taxpayer got handed the bailout bill,
And the newly elected president got the blame for something that was 20-40 years in the making...

Now, thank about that for a while,
Where did the 'Capital' come from to bribe politicans?
Where did the 'Capital' come from to buy out the smaller banks when interstate banking was deregulated,
Where did the 'Capital' come from to pay ABOVE market price for hostile takeover of the banks/investment companies, real estate companies?

Where did the 'Capital' come from to LOSE MONEY in the sub-prime mortgage market... 
When you could invest in bonds and make more money, but chose to lose a little money now for a HUGE payoff when you got control of the real estate and sold it off?

Where did the 'Capital' come from to get Congress to pass laws AGAINST regulators rules,
And in fact allowing up-side-down mortgages to be bundled and reclassified as AAA (triple A) ratings to attract rank & file investors, including pension & retirement pools so they could be stolen?

That takes some top flight education in long term 'Capitalism' strategic thinking,
The average street thug doesn't have that, but it's a criminal conspiracy from top to bottom,
And not one single person went to jail, and that's a fact.

Not one single person that got fleeced got their money back, and that's a fact.

Capitalism moved the wealth to the top, and the taxpayer got the bill for bailouts & clean up, and that's a fact.

Congress and/or president has overturned all the banking, stock market and investment group regulations that congress enacted after the 2008 crash, and that's a fact.

I can't blame the 'Government' for the actions of the people involved in a criminal enterprise since we elected those people, and keep reelecting the same people over and over again.
I can't blame 'We The People' for being victims of crime the FIRST time (1928, 1987),
The Enron scam and a hundred others,
But I put the blame squarely where it belongs in the 2008 crash, on 'We The People' for putting the same foxes in charge of the hen house over & over...

Now, if the criminals weren't running the government...
Every single member of congress that took campaign contributions, dark or black money/assistance and voted FOR the deregulation that allowed the 2008 crash to happen would be charged and tried. (Conviction would be up to the jury)
What actually happened is 96% got reelected...
Which means 'We The People' either don't understand what happened/is still happening, or we simply are too busy blaming everyone else for our own failures...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I posted it in it's simplest form for a purpose.
With no disrespect, if it looks backwards that may be how you are thinking or were taught.
Feel free to interpret it to suit you; that does not however, change the meaning.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Uncontrolled capitalism will always lead to slavery.
Mankind is not "poled" for sharing or good will
The chances to have a working and fair (between owner and employee) capitalism might stand a chance in a company that is not controlled by the stack holders...as soon a company goes into the stock market, any ethical thoughts are gone...
And Yes, Companies are corrupting Governments, not other way around...
And this "Jesus" if their was ever one, would cry and rotate in his grave if he would see what people use his name for these days


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Strange when I googled communism wiki told me that it went back to the ancient Greeks and was used by the original Christians
> When I study ancient history with an open mind I realize that many of the tribes as far as history goes back we’re communist.


You have an odd connection to the internet...

For everyone else 'Community' comes back to public use, for the community.

The word 'Communism' doesn't appear until Karl Marx wrote a manifesto on a proposed utopian society where everyone had the basics, everyone lived and produced up to potential.
Utopian but not practical since practically nobody produces at their potential.

'Community' predates 'Communism' by at least 2,000+ years (more like since the beginning of civilization) so maybe check your internet connection? 

Karl Marx was an extremely educated man that wanted to figure out a way to stop class wars and revolution, bloodshed, because of the Imperial/Monarchy/Capitalistic governments of his time were ending in revolution/bloodshed.

Being a highly educated but with little practical experience in the real world, he wanted the best for everyone.
His ideas/intentions were 'Good' in an ethical sense.

He really couldn't anticipate the politically motivated sociopath adopting his ideas (Lenin), twisting them into what Communism has become since it came through Lenin & homicidal psychopath Stalin.

He also WAY under estimated the human capacity for greed at the cost of everything else, including a complete abandonment of ethics & morality...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> I posted it in it's simplest form for a purpose.
> With no disrespect, if it looks backwards that may be how you are thinking or were taught.
> Feel free to interpret it to suit you; that does not however, change the meaning.


Look backwards to move forward.
Forgetting the mistakes of the past invites those mistakes to happen again.
Without 'Behind' there is no 'Forward', no frame of reference.

I'm not allowed by a moderator to give a specific viewpoint, so that will have to do...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> You have an odd connection to the internet...
> 
> For everyone else 'Community' comes back to public use, for the community.
> 
> ...


 I don’t think it strange at all that you did something different than me and got different results. 
I also Find it hard to believe that Carl Marx came up with the word communism.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

What I find strange is people living in the wealthiest nation ever witnessed by mankind are complaining about the very system that has produced this massive wealth as though it's failing in some way. Capitalism works! Look around you. Tell me again how poor Americans are and how miserable their lives are.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand, follow this link for a very interesting fellow who coined the term first in a letter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restif_de_la_Bretonne


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What I find strange is people living in the wealthiest nation ever witnessed by mankind are complaining about the very system that has produced this massive wealth as though it's failing in some way. Capitalism works! Look around you. Tell me again how poor Americans are and how miserable their lives are.


The viewpoint seems to be that better things are the farther they can fall. 
As long as one person is in misery then the system is a fail.
Equal misery among all I believe would be the goal.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Capitalism is hardly responsible for the good things in this country


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> The viewpoint seems to be that better things are the farther they can fall.
> As long as one person is in misery then the system is a fail.
> Equal misery among all I believe would be the goal.


I see, then Marxism is the path we should be on. That way everyone can starve together.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> AmericanStand, follow this link for a very interesting fellow who coined the term first in a letter.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restif_de_la_Bretonne


 Lol interesting guy but he is hardly the first person to use the term. 
At least that’s what it says on the link you sent me


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Capitalism is hardly responsible for the good things in this country


You got a list handy of the good things in our country brought to us by Marxism?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol interesting guy but he is hardly the first person to use the term.
> At least that’s what it says on the link you sent me


He is also noted for his advocacy of communism, indeed the term first made its modern appearance (1785) in his book review of Joseph-Alexandre-Victor Hupay de Fuveau who described himself as "communist" with his _Project for a Philosophical Community_.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think it strange at all that you did something different than me and got different results.
> I also Find it hard to believe that Carl Marx came up with the word communism.


And here we go with the right angle tangents to the OP...

While the same root word from Latin is used for 'Community and 'Communism', the meanings are entirely different.
An example would be not all 'Guns' are firearms, from liquid spray guns, to ion guns, entirely different applications for the same word or root word.

From the definition of 'Communism',


> In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century Europe. As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the proletariat—a new class of urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions. Foremost among these critics were Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels. In 1848, Marx and Engels offered a new definition of communism and popularized the term in their famous pamphlet _The Communist Manifesto_.[17]


We all know the idea of 'Community', 'Communicate', 'Commune' are no more related to 'Communism' as the current definition as a system of government than a 'Pit' hole in the ground has to a peach or cherry 'Pit'...

AND,
We all know the argument about the word 'Communist' has nothing to do with capitalism in relationship to the Original Post,
It's a deflection from the original post that questions the ethics of Capitalism in it's unadulterated form, which is pure greed.

Capitalism is still a business model that doesn't work for anyone but the guys at the top,
And Capitalism still isn't the opposite of Communism which is a system of government, not a business model.
When the results of Communism & Capitalism are viewed without the distinction of business & government, they are very similar, more so that most want to admit,
Particularly since 'Capitalism' has it's own private military forces, private military contractors that operate outside the laws of rank & file citizens & civilian police.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Worth repeating just to highlight the nonsense. 



JeepHammer said:


> Capitalism is still a business model that doesn't work for anyone but the guys at the top


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Meinecke said:


> Uncontrolled capitalism will always lead to slavery.
> Mankind is not "poled" for sharing or good will
> The chances to have a working and fair (between owner and employee) capitalism might stand a chance in a company that is not controlled by the stack holders...as soon a company goes into the stock market, any ethical thoughts are gone...
> And Yes, Companies are corrupting Governments, not other way around...
> And this "Jesus" if their was ever one, would cry and rotate in his grave if he would see what people use his name for these days


Diserves repeating before the right angle tangents & personal attacks when ration, reason & facts fail and the thread gets locked or deleted.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You got a list handy of the good things in our country brought to us by Marxism?


What makes you think any ism in particular brought us the good things?
The constitution ,the American way and the desire for freedom brought most of the good things to this country. 
This is the country where the term “making money “came from this is the first place where people recognized that wealth was not a zero-sum game ,that is purely American so it’s one of the cans not one of the isms


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What I find strange is people living in the wealthiest nation ever witnessed by mankind are complaining about the very system that has produced this massive wealth as though it's failing in some way. Capitalism works! Look around you. Tell me again how poor Americans are and how miserable their lives are.



Life is hard, just ask them,...its unfair they can not afford the new IphoneX…..

I would venture to say 97% do not even know what hard is,...…..I bet most of the population has never went 48 hours without food, even the homeless out here have more food than they know what to do with, the signs read please no more food, need money for booze and drugs.










There is a lot of knowledge contained in this symbol...…..

All it takes is cold fries to make some think the world is ending...……..because prosperity is so abundant.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Meinecke said:


> Uncontrolled capitalism will always lead to slavery.
> Mankind is not "poled" for sharing or good will
> The chances to have a working and fair (between owner and employee) capitalism might stand a chance in a company that is not controlled by the stack holders...as soon a company goes into the stock market, any ethical thoughts are gone...
> And Yes, Companies are corrupting Governments, not other way around...
> And this "Jesus" if their was ever one, would cry and rotate in his grave if he would see what people use his name for these days


I doubt very many people advocate "uncontrolled capitalism" that leads to anarchy with an unsustainable economy. Not many free market capitalists, like myself, believe that there isn't a role for reasonable regulation in a functional capitalist economy. The rules/regulations and capricious enforcement right now are onerous. They are less onerous than they were 2 years ago. But, there is further to go to reduce them and punish its selective enforcement.

Unions did there part when it was an explicit cabal between the wealthy and the government. That was before OSHA and minimum wage laws. Unions have a constitutional right to exist with the Freedom of Association in the First Amendment. BUT, unions should not have the special rights they do now, not available to the individual. 

Governments conspire with businesses so that the business makes more money to support government and vice versa. Neither one has your best interests at heart. BUT, you can choose not to do business with corporations, other than the government sanctioned monopolies. If you resist doing business with the government, from the federal level right down to the city/county government, you get imprisoned, bankrupted or shot. So, who is the most malevolent entity again?

Finally, Jesus isn't rolling over in his grave, he left it some time ago for good.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't even know what "uncontrolled capitalism" is


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> AmericanStand, follow this link for a very interesting fellow who coined the term first in a letter.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restif_de_la_Bretonne





AmericanStand said:


> Lol interesting guy but he is hardly the first person to use the term.
> At least that’s what it says on the link you sent me


Coordination behind the open forum for a sideways tangent, off topic rants...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I don't even know what "uncontrolled capitalism" is


That would take education in labor force history.

From children in coal and ore mines, to not paying workers in actual US currency so they can't purchase outside the inflated prices at the company store.
From demanding an unreasonable 'X' amount of production or the worker gets nothing for the production that is done, to fining the workforce for circumstances out of their control.
For kickbacks to employers for the job...

The list goes on and on, and those illegal outrages are the reason for so many of today's labor 
laws, but are still happening in a lot of cases.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I don't even know what "uncontrolled capitalism" is


Laissez Faire?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

shawnlee said:


> Life is hard, just ask them,...its unfair they can not afford the new IphoneX…..
> 
> I would venture to say 97% do not even know what hard is,...…..I bet most of the population has never went 48 hours without food, even the homeless out here have more food than they know what to do with, the signs read please no more food, need money for booze and drugs.


Sure, workers will just waste money on better food, well balanced meals,
They will waste money on medication (drugs) when they should just die and make room for a healthy worker that's more productive and hasn't been broken down by the job, poor diet, lousy or no health care.
Why pay someone enough they can afford a home, vehicle, dentures, eyeglasses, hearing aids, have a reasonable retirement...

Let's point at the poor choices people make as an excuse to NOT pay the hard working population for their labor and productivity...

Let's advocate FOR more pollution, the top 1% having their 54th Mansion/estate, a new yacht that's 50 feet longer and has a second helicopter landing pad, and get them a second helicopter while we are at it...
It will look really good next to the 54th new mansion/estate and 12 other yachts,for no other reason than to brag about the 54th mansion/estate and 13 yachts.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> Sure, workers will just waste money on better food, well balanced meals,
> They will waste money on medication (drugs) when they should just die and make room for a healthy worker that's more productive and hasn't been broken down by the job, poor diet, lousy or no health care.
> Why pay someone enough they can afford a home, vehicle, dentures, eyeglasses, hearing aids, have a reasonable retirement...
> 
> ...


Do you know how wages are defined and facilitated? You can't pay a worker more than what they generate. So, you can pay an equipment operator that can operate a backhoe more than you can pay a digger running a shovel that can't operate a backhoe. The owner that can't afford a backhoe, but has to rely on shovels, can't pay a shovel operator what an owner that can buy a backhoe can pay an equipment operator. Capital and its efficient allocation provides for higher wages, in case you didn't know.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hiro said:


> Do you know how wages are defined and facilitated? You can't pay a worker more than what they generate. So, you can pay an equipment operator that can operate a backhoe more than you can pay a digger running a shovel that can't operate a backhoe. The owner that can't afford a backhoe, but has to rely on shovels, can't pay a shovel operator what an owner that can buy a backhoe can pay an equipment operator. Capital and its efficient allocation provides for higher wages, in case you didn't know.


 That’s not how it works since the job is now easier you can find people that will operate the Backhoe for less money then they will shovel and somebody will do the job for less there’s no reason to pay more.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hiro said:


> Unions did there part when it was an explicit cabal between the wealthy and the government. That was before OSHA and minimum wage laws. Unions have a constitutional right to exist with the Freedom of Association in the First Amendment. BUT, unions should not have the special rights they do now, not available to the individual.
> 
> Governments conspire with businesses so that the business makes more money to support government and vice versa. Neither one has your best interests at heart. BUT, you can choose not to do business with corporations, other than the government sanctioned monopolies. If you resist doing business with the government, from the federal level right down to the city/county government, you get imprisoned, bankrupted or shot. So, who is the most malevolent entity again?
> 
> Finally, Jesus isn't rolling over in his grave, he left it some time ago for good.


What special rights do the unions have?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> What special rights do the unions have?


If an individual employee thinks they aren't getting paid enough, their pension isn't as generous as it should be, or they work too many hours, or the owners aren't sharing enough profits decides not to show up to work, they can be fired and replaced. If a union decides that, they can walk out and picket and claim the owners are greedy with no ramifications other than a loss of pay while they aren't working. It is illegal in non-right to work states, to simply fire them and replace them permanently. 

In the union States, if an individual did that, they could be fired, replaced and disposed of......unless they were a union member. A union member in those states have rights not available to a non-union member. It is a violation of the equal protection clause codified in the Constitution.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Hiro said:


> Do you know how wages are defined and facilitated? You can't pay a worker more than what they generate. So, you can pay an equipment operator that can operate a backhoe more than you can pay a digger running a shovel that can't operate a backhoe. The owner that can't afford a backhoe, but has to rely on shovels, can't pay a shovel operator what an owner that can buy a backhoe can pay an equipment operator. Capital and its efficient allocation provides for higher wages, in case you didn't know.


I own my own business and have employees, so I'm perfectly aware how things have to work.
I'm PAINFULLY aware of how hard it is the get, and retain good employees.
When I do find them, I pay them well, do profit sharing, and include them in any major discussion, they all know I have the final decision, but everyone, including bookkeeper & accountant gets a say.

I'm not stupid enough to believe I can do everything myself, cover every angle, forget nothing and do it all correctly everytime.
I'm also not stupid enough to treat workers like automated machines working 24/7 on noting more than electricity & lubricant.

I'm not about to pass out the shovels to dig a trench that takes a week, when $150 back hoe rental & 3 hours of my time completes the task.
The shovels would cost more than $150.

The last two months or so I'm the 'Grunt' that's been changing out heat treating batches every three hours...
My guys get paid quite well, I'd have to pay someone 24/7 to do the job,
But I live 350 yards from the shop, and I can mess around/nap in between transfers, and save overtime, and the guys don't have to come off a daytime schedule to babysit a bunch of metal slugs in a sauna.
They arrive ready to make more metal slugs headed for the sauna, so we make money...

What I don't do is 'Capitalism', I don't concentrate the profits at the top.
The investment capital was mine, so I own the place.
The BUSINESS IS OURS, WE BUILT IT.

We as a group decide if we get newer, faster or different equipment.
We as a group decide what is most cost effective.
Without them I'm just a welder with some machining skills,
We as a group are the business since I can't do the larger, more profitable jobs alone no matter how much automation is involved.
It's pooled brain power & resources that get the jobs done, no automated machine has ever designed and built itself...

I threw out the investment capital (little 'c') initially,
The difference between me and a 'Capitalist' (big 'C') is I reinvest in the equipment, building, labor force, instead of 'Capitalising' every cent of profit I can pry out of customers & labor in my personal bank account.
Since my first employee in this business 20 years ago, which is still here, I've paid a LIVING wage, and only one year in 20 we didn't get (none of us, me included) a profit sharing check at the end of the year.
It just so happened WE decided to buy some new, expensive equipment, and the customer/contract went belly up.
We also had 4 years when profit sharing was almost the yearly wages.

It was MY name on the loans for the equipment, but WE all went to work and paid everything off early and only missed profit sharing goals one year out of 20, so it's not a bad track record.

My 'Capital' is the building, machines, supplies and clients, not money in mansions, yachts, or a bank book I whip out to impress people/brag about.

My retirement is fast approaching, and the guys have been making enough to save, and buy out the business when I'm done.
Everyone knows exactly what everyone else makes, what the business makes, what the expenses are, etc. and have all along, so no surprises.

I'll be like the other guys that retired, I'll stop in once in a while to mooch free coffee and shoot the bull, get some little job done, pick up a few hours here and there when I feel like it, and I'll wave at them when I drive by...
I'm SERIOUSLY looking forward to having the choice of fishing, shooting or napping as the big decisions of the day!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Sure, workers will just waste money on better food, well balanced meals,
> They will waste money on medication (drugs) when they should just die and make room for a healthy worker that's more productive and hasn't been broken down by the job, poor diet, lousy or no health care.
> Why pay someone enough they can afford a home, vehicle, dentures, eyeglasses, hearing aids, have a reasonable retirement...
> 
> ...


I have to ask this...... The craftsmen who build those mansions and yachts.... You reckon they are living on so called "starvation wages" too?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Specify the short answer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The short answer is "no". The longer answers would go into detail about the excellent pay and benefits that real craftsmen earn.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to ask this...... The craftsmen who build those mansions and yachts.... You reckon they are living on so called "starvation wages" too?


 Usually


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hiro said:


> If an individual employee thinks they aren't getting paid enough, their pension isn't as generous as it should be, or they work too many hours, or the owners aren't sharing enough profits decides not to show up to work, they can be fired and replaced. If a union decides that, they can walk out and picket and claim the owners are greedy with no ramifications other than a loss of pay while they aren't working. It is illegal in non-right to work states, to simply fire them and replace them permanently.
> 
> In the union States, if an individual did that, they could be fired, replaced and disposed of......unless they were a union member. A union member in those states have rights not available to a non-union member. It is a violation of the equal protection clause codified in the Constitution.


 Do you have a link to that law ?I don’t think it exist.
A union takes all the same risk as an individual when it walks out.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You mean the union hall stops taking a paycheck and benefits too?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Do you think there is one to take anything out of if the workers are on strike


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

There is nothing anyone can do for people that can't differentiate between operating capital (small 'c'), fiance for operations and equipment that gets paid back with interest, and is usually done locally,

And Capitalism (Large 'C') as a business model that fixes wages, demands what the market will bear, and directs all profits to the top with no regards for anything but maximizing profits, all profits are removed from the host area.
I do mean ANYTHING to maximize profits, from worker endangerment/abuse to tax evasion.

There are people that can't or won't differentiate between 'Community' and 'Communism',
So it shouldn't surprise me there are people that can't or won't differentiate between 'capital' and 'Capitalism'.
It also shouldn't surprise me that people believe 'Capitalism' is the opposite of 'Communism', but it does...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wages are never fixed. Everyone in this country is free to seek employment, or create their own, anytime they like.


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wages are never fixed. Everyone in this country is free to seek employment, or create their own, anytime they like.


You're free to seek employment with any number of companies, competing with other companies all of which have the option of importing H1Bs, immigrants who's illegal status puts them in a very vulnerable / malleable position for the company and/or outsourcing to developing countries. At the end of the day, I'm not sure the option of competing with people in the third world for a job in a country with first world cost of living is much of an option.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wages are never fixed. Everyone in this country is free to seek employment, or create their own, anytime they like.


SURE there's no collusion to keep wages stagnate...
That's why with 50 year record low unemployment wages still aren't keeping up with inflation.

And that's all you took away?...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wages are never fixed. Everyone in this country is free to seek employment, or create their own, anytime they like.


That’s never been remotely true. 
The successful practitioners in the established businesses will do almost anything to keep someone else from joining in.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

China has created a "cotton gulag" in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Xinjiang produces 84 percent of China's cotton output, and is a primary supplier and exporter of cotton/textile/apparel products. Xinjiang is also home to a large percentage of China's prison population and these inmates serve as a key labor force in every link of China's cotton value chain, from cotton field reclamation to planting, harvesting, processing, and garment

https://uhrp.org/news-commentary/report-released-cotton-fabric-full-lies


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> China has created a "cotton gulag" in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Xinjiang produces 84 percent of China's cotton output, and is a primary supplier and exporter of cotton/textile/apparel products. Xinjiang is also home to a large percentage of China's prison population and these inmates serve as a key labor force in every link of China's cotton value chain, from cotton field reclamation to planting, harvesting, processing, and garment
> 
> https://uhrp.org/news-commentary/report-released-cotton-fabric-full-lies


There are 'Political Prisoners' all over China, they call them 'Re-Education Camps'.
One on the news not too long ago had over 100,000 working a 'Rehabilitation' industrial center.
The motto on the front gate is, "Work Will Set You Free"...

Russia does the same thing,

And the only exemption to forced work/anti-slavery laws in the US are for prisoners, and with private prisons US industry is taking full advantage of that forced/slave labor.









If you want to know how early this starts in the US, just search "School To Jail" and read a little...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Popular phrase.

Arbeit macht frei-Work sets you free










"Arbeit macht frei" is a German phrase meaning "work sets you free". The slogan is known for appearing on the entrance of Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

no really said:


> Popular phrase.
> 
> Arbeit macht frei-Work sets you free
> 
> ...


It wasn't lost on me...
It's also the motto in north Korea, Russia, etc.

Not too long ago, a federal judge ordered California to release several thousand non-violent offenders that had met sentencing minimums and were eligible for parole or work release due to severe overcrowding.
The state of California appealed and in the brief, listed 'Significant Losses To Outside Contractors If The Labor Force Was Reduced'...

There is a Capitalism reason for so many non-violent inmates being held so long...
Particularly in private prisons.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The State of California, also known as....
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamal...ied-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-for-cheap-labor


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dyrne said:


> You're free to seek employment with any number of companies, competing with other companies all of which have the option of importing H1Bs, immigrants who's illegal status puts them in a very vulnerable / malleable position for the company and/or outsourcing to developing countries. At the end of the day, I'm not sure the option of competing with people in the third world for a job in a country with first world cost of living is much of an option.


And yet there are millions of Americans finding good jobs, lots more going into business for themselves and prospering. Gotta wonder how that happens?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> That’s never been remotely true.
> The successful practitioners in the established businesses will do almost anything to keep someone else from joining in.


Untrue, at least in my experience. I've found successful practitioners with established businesses to be quite receptive to "new kids on the block". You just have to be willing to work with them, make it worth their while. Successful people are always looking for ways to become more successful.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Glad these grapes are not used for wine.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And yet there are millions of Americans finding good jobs, lots more going into business for themselves and prospering. Gotta wonder how that happens?


 Again not true more people find jobs than go into business .
Sure it takes hiring millions for those companies Replace the workers it has worn out


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Untrue, at least in my experience. I've found successful practitioners with established businesses to be quite receptive to "new kids on the block". You just have to be willing to work with them, make it worth their while. Successful people are always looking for ways to become more successful.


How does creating a new competitor make a successful person more successful?
I have seen a certain amount of help from successful people to other people but seldom in starting a directly competing business. 
As a type of business becomes established and the field becomes full that’s when entry barriers tend to be placed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This discussion so clearly shows HT GC as a theater of the absurd.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

There are approximately 618,000 “millennial millionaires” — those with a net worth of over $1 million — in the United States, according to a 2019 report from Coldwell Banker Global Luxury and WealthEngine, which defines millennials as those born between 1982 and 1996, or ages 23 to 37 in 2019.

The “Great Wealth Transfer” refers to the trillions of dollars that will be passed down to millennials from their baby boomer parents, who are considered the wealthiest generation in history.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/heres-where-the-millennial-millionaires-live-around-the-us.html


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

It's often perception.
$1 million over 10 years is $100k a year.
It's $75k over 15 years.
It's $50k over 20 years.
Then it's gone.

At 1.5% interest it's $15,000 a year pre-tax.
(I honestly don't know what savings accounts are paying in interest right now, but I'm guessing it's not 1.5%)

Consider the cost of living, creeping inflation, etc and a million dollars might seem huge to 1967 Dr. Evil, but in real life it's not all that much.
My mother's cancer cost $1.6 million... And she still died.

The average family pays about $22,000 for health insurance a year.
$1 million = 45 years of health insurance.
Interest on $1 million doesn't pay for a single year of health insurance at 1.5%.

Median single family home price so far in 2019, $226,800 before taxes, maintiance, fees, etc.

Tell me again how $1 million is such a great deal of money...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

A million dollars?
Here's how.
Many of the folks on this forum live on less than 50K per year. Just read the money saving threads to give you an idea.
Some live on half of that or less.
But I'm not sure who lives on 50k per year doing absolutely nothing else for 20 years, andt I would expect most all of them would be getting a side hustle going for their supplemental or busy money.
A member here experienced in self sufficiency should have no problem figuring out how to manage on a pittance of what society deems to be a good standard of living. That includes the basic cost of living, including their health.
It doesn't matter if it is $1000 or $1,000,000. It is how you make it work for you.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

With a little luck 10% RoR on $1M is ok to live on if you play it smart


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> It's often perception.
> $1 million over 10 years is $100k a year.
> It's $75k over 15 years.
> It's $50k over 20 years.
> ...


Yer right, it's all about perception. A million bucks is an Infathomable amount to someone with nothing. And it's a nice chunk o change to most folks that I hang out with. But then it took me several years to gather enough money and materials to build our home. Right around 25K maybe less. Yeah, a million bucks is a lot to a lot of folks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> With a little luck 10% RoR on $1M is ok to live on if you play it smart


Yep, that's about four times as much as I have coming in and I have plenty..... And I ain't all that smart!


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> There is nothing anyone can do for people that can't differentiate between operating capital (small 'c'), fiance for operations and equipment that gets paid back with interest, and is usually done locally,
> 
> And Capitalism (Large 'C') as a business model that fixes wages, demands what the market will bear, and directs all profits to the top with no regards for anything but maximizing profits, all profits are removed from the host area.
> I do mean ANYTHING to maximize profits, from worker endangerment/abuse to tax evasion.
> ...


I find it terribly ironic and hypocritical that you excoriate someone for referring to the root of a word as having some bearing on the meaning of the word, yet at the same time attempting to redefine a word by capitalizing the first letter. Your attempts to change the meaning to fit your perception is meaningless.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Hiro said:


> I find it terribly ironic and hypocritical that you excoriate someone for referring to the root of a word as having some bearing on the meaning of the word, yet at the same time attempting to redefine a word by capitalizing the first letter. Your attempts to change the meaning to fit your perception is meaningless.


There isn't anything I can do about what you think.
Not much I can do when someone can't tell the difference between community and Communism, then double down on it when the difference is pointed out...

Capital is currency.
In business capital is currency or labor invested.
Capitalism is a business model that concentrates all profits at the top.

Capitalism still isn't the opposite of Communism.

Community still isn't Communism.

After seeing guys not being able to differentiate between investment capital and Capitalism,
Communism and Capitalism,
Communism and communities,

The lack of ability to differentiate explains some things.
It explains the extremists political, religious, government and economic viewpoints expressed,
Not to mention the space alien, flat earth, anti-vaxer, climate change and other anti-science viewpoints.

'Believe' what you want, just don't expect the other 85% of the population to go along with it.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> There isn't anything I can do about what you think.
> Not much I can do when someone can't tell the difference between community and Communism, then double down on it when the difference is pointed out...
> *
> Capitol is currency.*
> ...


I will try to help you out with definitions.

Capitol : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitol

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


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

An auto fill error and you get detailed and miss the point entirely.

Thanks for proving my point...


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

It didn't auto fill the same supposed intended word in the next sentence. And even after the edit, the sentence in question is still wrong. What point was that again?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I find it amazing that some can’t see the similarities and parallels between community ,communism and communes.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Everyone is using whatever definition dunks their Oreos. 

We are all eating Oreos. Some are griping about it and some aren't. People are dying in Hong Kong because China want's their Oreos back.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Tell me again how money isn't capital..

cap·i·tal1
/ˈkapədl/
_noun_

1.
the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative center.
Similar:
first city, most important city, seat of government, center of administration, metropolis


2.
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.
"rates of return on invested capital were high"

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/capital-investment.html

cap·i·tal gain
/ˌkapədl ˈɡān/
_noun_
plural noun: *capital gains*

a profit from the sale of property or an investment.
"a tax is imposed when individuals part with an asset and make capital gains on it"

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital_gains_tax.asp

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Tell me again how money isn't capital..
> 
> cap·i·tal1
> /ˈkapədl/
> ...


Money is capital. So is your house, welder, leads, rods, CNC, etc.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> Money is capital. So is your house, welder, leads, rods, CNC, etc.


Only when sold inside the current REGULATED economic model.
Property (equipment, inventory, land) is 'Equity' or 'Assets' when it's not currency (money).
It can be used as 'Collateral' to generate (borrow against) capital (money/currency).

Outside the REGULATED economic model, in a Barter/Trade economy, possessions are currency since in barter/trade official currency isn't used.

There are a lot of reasons for a REGULATED economic model and official currency, but the one that concerns Governments most is taxation.
When currency is involved, they want currency.
When fish is traded for pork, sending a hunk of rotten fish & rotten pork doesn't work for government tax collectors... 

-------

In earlier governments, grain mills were the tax collectors, they would actually hold back part of your harvest to be handed over to the 'Crown', and livestock were taken as taxes and herded to the 'Crown' sales or kitchens.

During WWII the UK went back to this perfering the raw materials to feed troops.
Prices had been frozen to keep war profiteering from happening, the NAZIs were counterfeiting currency as fast as they could crank it out, so to control inflation, prices were frozen.

And at the time, transportation wasn't so good, no super highway with 70 mph refrigerated trucks, so meat processors were already located at the slaughter house, and your 'Tax' went out the side door in cans marked 'Military Rations'.
Grain at the elevator/mill was about the same way, processed and shipped to the military.

With prices fixed, the government was paying a premium for production, so once you paid your 'Tax' the government was your best paying buyer and you got more currency for your livestock.
It was so trouble free and lucrative for meat producers they often grazed livestock on those well manicured lawns to have extra production capacity!

With direct goods to market/taxation the NAZIs were kept out of the monetary system.
After they war, the Allies found 1.5 times the amount of bank notes that were in circulation in the UK islands that hadn't been circulated by the NAZIs yet, and no one has been able to determine how many notes the NAZIs already circulated to crash the UK economy.
There are pictures of bundles of counterfeit bills being shoveled into boilers in the central bank to heat the place for years after WWII, some people estimate 2/3 of the bank notes were counterfeit after WWII, but it was kept quiet and slowly removed as money circulated.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Capitalism is still a business model that doesn't work for anyone but the guys at the top,
> And Capitalism still isn't the opposite of Communism which is a system of government, not a business model.


oh, I dunno about that, capitalism has produced some of the highest standards of living on the planet. Even here in the us our "poor" are vastly ahead of many folks living in socialist countries. In my world communism translates to an economic system where the gummit owns all the resources and the citizens own only what beans the gummit allows them to have.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> oh, I dunno about that, capitalism has produced some of the highest standards of living on the planet. Even here in the us our "poor" are vastly ahead of many folks living in socialist countries. In my world communism translates to an economic system where the gummit owns all the resources and the citizens own only what beans the gummit allows them to have.


Really?
Because it was free market/free enterprise, collective bargaining that built the US.
The abundance of untapped natural resources helped a bunch.

Every sweat shop is a 'Capitalist' business model.
The minimum wage, government assistance & welfare programs simply keep the ultra poor/working poor from rising up in revolt.

And by the way, assistance, minimum wages & welfare ARE 'Socialist' programs, along with public highways, water & sewer systems, power grids, natural gas grids, etc, 
SO! You have been living in a Socialist country, and that co-operative socialist agenda is what made the US what it is today... 
(WOOPS! Didn't think that one through very well when you decided to go 'Anything Socialist IS BAD' direction!)

Keep in mind that before collective bargaining by workers the alternative was to drag the 'Capitalist' out of his home and killing him in front of his family.

When Marie Antoinette, the LAST queen (monarch/imperialist) ruler of France was informed, "The People Haven't Bread To Eat", her replay was "Well then, Let Them Eat Cake".
She lost her head... Literally.

When the 'Capitalist' monarchy/imperialist economic system in Russia went too far, the royal family was dragged out and executed by the 'Subjects/Peasants'.

When the British 'Crown' 'Capitalist' (monarchy/imperialist economic system) became too much for the American colonies, the 'Subjects/Peasants' started a revloution we celebrate every 4th of July...

Just keep telling yourself 'Capitalism' and free economy/investment capital/reinvestment capital are the same things with no ability to differentiate, be a good Torie, paint those stripes around the chimney to show support...

Or in today's society it's yard signs and memes/bumper stickers...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it amazing that some can’t see the similarities and parallels between community ,communism and communes.


Do you mean you actually can't see ANY difference between your community/neighborhood (Community) and Russia, North Korea, China, etc systems of government? (Communism)

You can't see the difference in agriculture or buying/selling collectives (communes/co-operatives) and the governments of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea etc?

One place to start might be with seeing exactly how many members of your neighborhood 'Community' gather up in mass and summary executions in mass and at will without reprocussions...

Make a trip to the local trade co-operative (commune) and see how many slave laborers they have...

A good place to start is to see if you are free to travel around your neighborhood, town, county or country without travel passes, visas, etc.

Not much anyone can do for the group that willfully refuses to acknowledge the facts.

Capitalism still isn't the opposite of Communism,
A Community or Co-operative/commune still isn't Communism,
Capital is still currency,
Capitalism still concentrates money at the top, and out of local, even countries economies,

Ignorance of those facts still doesn't mean they aren't facts.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> Not much anyone can do for the group that willfully refuses to acknowledge the facts.
> Ignorance of those facts still doesn't mean they aren't facts.


I'm betting the irony in those two statement escapes you.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> I'm betting the irony in those two statement escapes you.


So, down to out of context quotes and personal insults again?

Still trying to squirm around to get an insult in despite all the definitions?
Still sticking to the party line dogma, if you can't debate, insult until you get the thread closed?

Again, thanks for proving my point.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> Do you mean you actually can't see ANY difference between your community/neighborhood (Community) and Russia, North Korea, China, etc systems of government? (Communism)
> 
> You can't see the difference in agriculture or buying/selling collectives (communes/co-operatives) and the governments of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea etc?
> 
> ...


Lol come on you are being plumb silly. Of course there are differences.
Let’s turn your first statement around. Can’t you see any similarities?
The commune is the base of all of them. 
What the government does with each of them is the difference. 
don’t blame the any of communist systems for the shortcomings of the government that they are under.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol come on you are being plumb silly. Of course there are differences.
> Let’s turn your first statement around. Can’t you see any similarities?
> The commune is the base of all of them.
> What the government does with each of them is the difference.
> don’t blame the any of communist systems for the shortcomings of the government that they are under.


So now you admit you deliberately polluted the thread by pretending you couldn't differentiate between 'Community', 'Commune', 'Communism'...

Does that mean you also played dumb and refused to acknowledge the difference between capital money and 'Capitalism' further INTENTIONALLY polluting the conversation, trolling, bating people?

Syphilis & Sympathy sound similar, care to try and connect the two? 
I mean since you refuse to accept common current useage definitions & meanings to troll, this might actually be entertaining...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Maybe someone can speak to the socialist nature of some of these. Most appear to have failed.

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


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> So now you admit you deliberately polluted the thread by pretending you couldn't differentiate between 'Community', 'Commune', 'Communism'...
> 
> Does that mean you also played dumb and refused to acknowledge the difference between capital money and 'Capitalism' further INTENTIONALLY polluting the conversation, trolling, bating people?
> 
> ...


 Thread drift is a given in this forum,that’s why we accepted it with no problem when you confused us discussing about economic systems with government. 
Re-read the beginning of this thread it wasn’t about government systems. 
Should we accuse you of deliberately polluting the thread since you want to talk about government systems. 
Kind of odd that you want to give a negative connotation to a drift. If you don’t want to talk about the subject of the drift just don’t , unless someone does want to discuss that subject it quickly dies out.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Maybe someone can speak to the socialist nature of some of these. Most appear to have failed.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities


That one is easy. Any sociology or psychology class will cover it...

'Ideal' and 'Utopia' require EVERYONE to produce useable goods/services at a very high or optimum level, and that always discounts human nature which is naturally to be as lazy as they can get away with.

Humans will typically only work as hard as is necessary to be reasonably comfortable.
The military has to constantly combat the body getting soft, the reflexes slowing down, skills being lost, discipline goes right out the window, and it happens quite quickly.

Then the human ego isn't taken into consideration in 'Ideal' and 'Utopian' constructs.
Everybody wants to be 'Boss' and gets butt hurt when they aren't (even though there can only be one 'Boss'.)
Everyone wants to be an 'Artist', or 'Musician', or 'Poet', or 'Writer', with WAY too few getting out and doing the hard work.

I only know this because I studied why homesteads and small businesses fail.

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



AmericanStand said:


> Thread drift is a given in this forum,that’s why we accepted it with no problem when you confused us discussing about economic systems with government.
> Re-read the beginning of this thread it wasn’t about government systems.
> Should we accuse you of deliberately polluting the thread since you want to talk about government systems.
> Kind of odd that you want to give a negative connotation to a drift. If you don’t want to talk about the subject of the drift just don’t , unless someone does want to discuss that subject it quickly dies out.


Thread drift might be accepted, particularly when the primary subject/question has been covered.

What you did is admit you were deliberately baiting, trolling, diverting and misdirecting the subject at hand to entertain yourself.
If not against form rules, it should be noted by other users when you post anything.

Now you are trying to deny, deflect, make counter accusations from something you already put in writing.
More subterfuge to try and spin what you already admitted to.

It might work with some people... Not so much with me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> Thread drift might be accepted, particularly when the primary subject/question has been covered.
> 
> What you did is admit you were deliberately baiting, trolling, diverting and misdirecting the subject at hand to entertain yourself.
> If not against form rules, it should be noted by other users when you post anything.
> ...


I stayed directly on the subject while you are trying to drift the thread off into something else.
We all know that you like to discuss failed politics but not every discussion Has to be about the failures of government. 
Don’t you understand the capitalism was presented in this thread as an economic dynamic not a political one.
There’s something really warped about you accusing other people of doing exactly what you do again and again and again.
My viewpoints maybe unique but luckily we have a nation founded on protecting the rights of everyone.
Not just those that agree .
Communism is not a bad word in spite of all the things that Joe McCarthy we have had to say about it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Just a little food for thought-








Russia gives on average up to 7 billion dollars to charity each year.
China gives about 5 billion.
80% of that giving comes from corporations.

In the United States, with those evil wage stifling CEOs and union busting mom and pops, right to work states, the charitable giving tops out at about oh, a little over 400 billion bucks.
400,000,000,000...Yes, eleven zeros there oh haters of the free wheeling economy.
One other little nugget to nibble with your "All Together" cornflakes is that 80% of that comes from private giving.

That is over 2% of the GDP and more than the majority of other nations entire GDP thru out the world.
Why is that? Cuz we has us some money maybe?
Cuz the peoples know a good thing when they live it and want to share a bit of it.

Alas, to those that are too busy belching out gas and smoke, stomping and dictating to their mirror, they can't see in front of their nose the benefits and good of existing in an economy such as ours.
"The economy is rigged, the leaders are crooked, the rich are our enemy oh woe is everyone!"
Yet here they live pecking away on private utilities wondering why no other country calls their own illegal immigrants "Dreamers" rather than under arrest.
One might almost suspect it is self loathing disguised as cynicism.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Think of what you’re saying 80% of the charity comes from the tiny percentage a free enterprise in China and Russia


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> And by the way, assistance, minimum wages & welfare ARE 'Socialist' programs, along with public highways, water & sewer systems, power grids, natural gas grids, etc,
> SO! You have been living in a Socialist country, and that co-operative socialist agenda is what made the US what it is today...
> (WOOPS! Didn't think that one through very well when you decided to go 'Anything Socialist IS BAD' direction!)
> 
> Keep in mind that before collective bargaining by workers the alternative was to drag the 'Capitalist' out of his home and killing him in front of his family.


Yes, assistance, and welfare are socialist systems. (Unconstitutional as well) Power grids, minimum wage, hi ways, water and sewer systems etc.... Not so much. Collective bargaining didn't really come into play until early twentieth century, I don't recall workers "dragging capitalists out of their homes and killing them" in this country prior to unions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Maybe someone can speak to the socialist nature of some of these. Most appear to have failed.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities


And the vast majority were very short lived. 5 to 10 years.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I stayed directly on the subject while you are trying to drift the thread off into something else.
> We all know that you like to discuss failed politics but not every discussion Has to be about the failures of government.


I've pointed out time & time again that 'Politics' and 'Government' are two different, but internet related topics.
You can't buy a system of 'Government', but you can sure buy politicians.



> Don’t you understand the capitalism was presented in this thread as an economic dynamic not a political one.


I've pointed out time and time again that 'Capitalism' (business model) isn't the opposite of 'Communism' (system of government),
So I don't confuse government, or political process with economics or a specific business model.



> There’s something really warped about you accusing other people of doing exactly what you do again and again and again.


You are the one that admitted you sidelined, trolled, diverted and derailed the subject...



> My viewpoints maybe unique but luckily we have a nation founded on protecting the rights of everyone.


I'm not seeing much unique,
Maybe there is something you have left unsaid?

How exactly do you think 'Capitalism', a business model dedicated to extracting every last cent from resources, including the workforce, is concentrated to a remote location, protect anyones Rights?



> Not just those that agree .


Why do you spend so much time and effort, and these other guys too, trying to convince the ONLY person (me) that doesn't agree with YOU GUYS?
You speak of 'Capitalism' like a religion, something you 'Believe' in contrary to all facts.
You even refuse to accept common usage definitions of capital as currency, capitalism as a business model believing it's an 'Economy' and part of the government,
You argue that a community is communism,
That social agreements are 'Socialism' and 'Socialism' is 'Communism'...

And this despite any and all definitions and explanations to the contrary!
No matter how many links to dictionaries and encyclopedias for reference, why is 'Capitalism' still the opposite of 'Communism'?
Is the social engineering/propaganda so deep you won't believe your 'lying eyes' in favor of the propaganda 'Belief'?
Did you just hear 'Capitalism' was the opposite of 'Communism' so many times you can't accept facts when presented, update your thinking?

*Honestly, I'd like to know because I don't understand it...*


*



Communism is not a bad word in spite of all the things that Joe McCarthy we have had to say about it.

Click to expand...

'Communism' * as the current system of 'Government' IS NOT what previous people that proposed it to be.
Previous proposals of a community based 'Commune' was a 'Utopian' based 'Ideal' society.
Everyone works to their best potential, production, everything thrown into a big pool and handed out in even portions to everyone.
Everyone gets what they need and most of what they want...

For that to happen, everyone has to AGREE what's fair,
Everyone has to AGREE where to 'spend' resources,
THAT takes exactly the same EDUCATION between all members, so everyone understands all the benefits, risks, problems, etc.
And it REQUIRES everyone to leave egos out of the decisions, and that's not going to happen with humans.
The 'Human Factor' has killed every commune experiment to date.
Trying to get humans to work for the groups best interest can be likened to herding cats, just too many egos and differing experiences/education, and 'Beliefs'.

I don't make it a practice of study of politics.
Politics are people, mental disorders, egos, 'Beliefs' that can't be dislodged no matter the factual evidence, greed, agenda,... WAY too much 'Crazy' variables to deal with.
Other than psychology which defines all the 'Crazy', and I enjoy, I stay out of political study.

I have a deep interest in 'Government' in general, mostly because I have a specific interest in our system of government in particular, and what ideas went into it.
There is so much just plain FALSE information out there about our government I had to go back to the beginning and read the writings of the founders,
Then I read the actual educated, scholar opinions on what the founders wrote.
What the founder wrote is first hand fact of what they were thinking.
What scholars wrote is opinion, most of it I agree with, some I don't... Personal opinion or something that doesn't agree with what the founders wrote.

I have read at least 300 books on economic systems and how they work.
I don't confuse economic systems or business models with government or the political circus.
*I* wanted a business to succeed enough to support me in my old age, allow me to retire before I was too old/broken to enjoy some 'Me' time before I died.

The point is,
I seek actual education, I accept new information and update my knowledge bank when new information comes in.
I adjust everything around that new information to correct previous opinions and fill in gaps, discard old irrelevant/incorrect information that's no longer needed.

I CHOOSE to spend my time updating as much information as I can, NOTHING is 'Dogma' or unsupported 'Belief' if I can help it...
Dogma locks out any new idea/information, business can't exist if it can't adapt to new circumstances, so nothing is 'Sacred', 'Carved In Stone', 'Dogma' or unsupported 'Belief'...

One more thing to point out,
At no time did anyone ask questions in a polite, debate, conversational manner.
It was ALWAYS someone telling me how wrong, stupid, idiotic a new (to them) idea or information was.
When I come across something new I want to hear it out, ask questions, have time to assess it before I accept or reject it.
All I saw her was a bunch of guys with inbedded social engineering message of 'Capitalism' is the opposite of 'Communism' and then proceeded to tell me how 'Capitalism' is our system of government...
Which by the way, still clearly is not true.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, assistance, and welfare are socialist systems. (Unconstitutional as well) Power grids, minimum wage, hi ways, water and sewer systems etc.... Not so much. Collective bargaining didn't really come into play until early twentieth century, I don't recall workers "dragging capitalists out of their homes and killing them" in this country prior to unions.


Assistance & welfare isn't 'Unconstitutional' since it passed the Supreme Court challenges.
Those would be the actual educated people in the Judicial branch of government which exists entirely to determine what is or isn't Constitutional or legal.
Your 'Opinion' is noted, and you are entitled to it, but it's not factual.

Anything common to the general public is 'Social' or 'Communal' by definition.
That includes public water and sewer systems, highways, Public buildings and properties such as Parks, etc. These are social contracts between communities & government that supports them.
Again, you are allowed your 'Opinion', but it's not factual.

Collective bargaining has noting to do with social/public works.
The workers may, or may not have union/collective bargaining is irrelevant, the social/public project is determined by local or national government, not labor.

Organized labor/collective bargaining predates formation of the US, the first recorded labor strike and collective bargaining was 1768 (18th century) and was one of the contributing factors for the colonies to declare Independence from the British (Declaration Of Independence, 4-July-1776).

https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/labor

The US was founded on two big issues,
1. The Monarchy system of government that dictates from the top down, no representation of the population,
2. The Imperialist economic model, where all profits flow up to the top with no regards for the labor force. Imperialist economic model is exactly the same as 'Capitalism' with exception the top 1% isn't a Monarch.

Americans literally fought the War Of Independence against what people don't understand and advocate today.
Do you see any Irony in this?

You are allowed any opinion you care to have, but your statement isn't factual.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Think of what you’re saying 80% of the charity comes from the tiny percentage a free enterprise in China and Russia


What he presented was an 'Opinion' with nothing for facts... Just a statement of opinion.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> I've pointed out time & time again that 'Politics' and 'Government' are two different, but internet related topics.
> You can't buy a system of 'Government', but you can sure buy politicians.
> 
> You are welcome to point away.
> ...


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> Assistance & welfare isn't 'Unconstitutional' since it passed the Supreme Court challenges.
> Those would be the actual educated people in the Judicial branch of government which exists entirely to determine what is or isn't Constitutional or legal.
> Your 'Opinion' is noted, and you are entitled to it, but it's not factual.
> 
> ...


Actually the American Revolution began because of numerous escalations by the King of England. Taxation without representation was part of it; but, it was more than that. You can educate yourself on the enumerated reasons here:

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

And finally, an Imperialist economic model is not even remotely the same as capitalism, even if you capitalize the first letter. If changing the capitalization, changed the meaning of capitalism, then its placement in sentence structure would change definitions.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

If capitalism is dead, explain why the surge in Hispanic owned business earnings?

*Earnings of Latino-Owned Businesses Jumped 46 Percent During Past 12 Months, According to Biz2Credit’s Annual Study 


Growth Outpaces Non-Latino Owned Businesses with Economy at Full Strength
*
_https://www.biz2credit.com/research-reports/latino-small-business-study-2019_​


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Assistance & welfare isn't 'Unconstitutional' since it passed the Supreme Court challenges.
> Those would be the actual educated people in the Judicial branch of government which exists entirely to determine what is or isn't Constitutional or legal.
> Your 'Opinion' is noted, and you are entitled to it, but it's not factual.
> 
> ...


Like you say, your opinion is yours, and you are entitled to it, doesn't make it factual. Assistance and welfare have never passed constitutional muster to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps you can show us where the Supreme Court has stated in any opinion that the federal government is empowered to grant charity to anyone. Or run retirement programs, or peddle health insurance. Those powers are not granted to the Feds by our constitution, therefor they are reserved to the states or the people.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

1937 Supreme Court challenges to SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

Quoted from Social Security Act Regarding Assistance & Welfare.



> Graham v. Department Of Public Welfare, 1971
> "This case, from Arizona, concerns the State's participation in federal categorical *assistance and welfare programs.* These programs originate with the *Social Security Act [p367] of 1935*, 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U.S.C. c. 7. They are supported in part by federal grants-in-aid, and are administered by the States under federal guidelines."


The Supreme Court website record of cases shows 17 challenge to social security and assistance programs attached to Social Security Act passed in 1935 and the first Supreme Court challenge was in 1937 on grounds Social Security was unconstitutional.

I'd say the Supreme Court has pretty well had it's say on the issue if Social Security and attached programs are 'Unconstitutional' or not, the facts speak for themselves but you go ahead and keep your 'Beliefs' under that same Constitution... Your 'Beliefs' simply aren't factual.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Hiro said:


> Actually the American Revolution began because of numerous escalations by the King of England. Taxation without representation was part of it; but, it was more than that. You can educate yourself on the enumerated reasons here:
> 
> https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
> 
> And finally, an Imperialist economic model is not even remotely the same as capitalism, even if you capitalize the first letter. If changing the capitalization, changed the meaning of capitalism, then its placement in sentence structure would change definitions.


Taxation without representation.
The Monarchy (system of government) laid down laws from the top without regarding for, or representation from the 'Subjects' it governed.

I was wondering who would fall into that diatribe without understanding what they were addressing...

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

First off, the American colonies were sources of raw materials, all owned by the 'Crown' (Monarchy), the colonies being an extension of an 'Empire', and that Empire having a Monarchy system of government.
Or do you disagree with that?



> A *monarchy* is a form of government in which a natural person, the monarch, is head of state until death or abdication. The governing power of the monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to restricted (constitutional monarchy), *to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), combining executive, legislative and judicial power.*


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

*I can't believe this has to be spelled out with every definition noted and linked, and will still be ignored*

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

Secondly, being a source or raw materials the colonists were required to ship raw or partly processed materials to England.
Materials were finished in England, and if the colonists wanted the products, they had to buy them back at inflated prices, and pay duties, taxes, tariffs on those products.
As early as 1609 the 'Navigation Acts' choked the life out of the US colonies...

You might look up the phrase, "Good Enough For America" which was popular in the UK when sub-standard goods were shipped to American colonies for inflated prices, it was one of the things Thomas Jefferson quoted several times when advocating for war with the British.

While England/UK/British Empire waged wars, the colonists had a chance to build and do for themselves, and the seeds of freedom were born...
From labor strikes demanding reasonable living wage, to manufacturing finished goods, to trading with other countries directly brought the British Empire down on them...

Since you can't put the genie back in the bottle on manufacturing, the Empire restricted trade with it's huge Navy.



> In a series of acts passed by Parliament during the seventeenth century the Navigation Acts required that all trade within the empire be conducted on ships which were constructed, owned and largely manned by British citizens. Certain enumerated goods whether exported or imported by the colonies had to be shipped through England regardless of the final port of destination.-- Ben Baack, Ohio State University


https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit.../colonial-north-america/a/the-navigation-acts



> The *Navigation Acts* were a series of laws *passed* by the British *Parliament* that imposed restrictions on colonial trade.
> *British economic policy was based on mercantilism, which aimed to use the American colonies to bolster British state power and finances*.


Read that last bold and underlined sentence again until it soaks in...
From 1609 forward the British Empire squeezed the life out of the American colonies until the colonies revolted and started a war.
Fat people making tons of money (capital) don't revolt and start wars...

Raw materials were owned by the 'Crown', slave wages paid to extract those raw materials, shipped to England to be finished, all profits flowed directly to the 'Crown', they typical economic model of the day called 'Imperialism'....

All profits flowing up is now called 'Capitalism', but it's the same idea, minus the 'Monarch' at the top.
You can argue until you turn from red to blue in the face, the two biggest issues that started the Revolutionary War were no representation in the Monarchy system of government, and the Imperial/Capitalism economic system...
Because you 'Believe' something else doesn't make it factual.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I'm well aware of the bs ruling using the general welfare clause. I'm somewhat surprised that a person of your wisdom and education cannot see the blatant flaw in that ruling.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> Taxation without representation.
> The Monarchy (system of government) laid down laws from the top without regarding for, or representation from the 'Subjects' it governed.
> 
> I was wondering who would fall into that diatribe without understanding what they were addressing...
> ...


I believe I provided a link to why the Revolution started in words of those that started it. Your version is, once again, meaningless in the face of facts provided. 

And as an aside, those that were the leaders of the Revolution, by and large, were doing quite fine economically under the Imperialist economic model.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Go and figure. You provided a link using the originator's intent and yet, according to the orb, the founders weren't smart enough to know that they were really doing something different, LOL.

It wasn't just the leaders of the Revolution. Leaving that system cost many "rebels" their lands, their fortunes, sometimes their families, and sometimes their lives.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm well aware of the bs ruling using the general welfare clause. I'm somewhat surprised that a person of your wisdom and education cannot see the blatant flaw in that ruling.


It is the eventual and certain result when precedent conflicts with original intent and/or textualism. 
The shame isn't in admitting to flawed principals so much rather than in clinging to them.
I'm sure somebody noteworthy said that once; if not I'll claim it.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> It is the eventual and certain result when precedent conflicts with original intent and/or textualism.
> The shame isn't in admitting to flawed principals so much rather than in clinging to them.
> I'm sure somebody noteworthy said that once; if not I'll claim it.


(Plagiarized) Editorials mean nothing in the face established law simply because 'Personal Opinion' is not established law, not peer reviewed, contains no facts or evidence.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm well aware of the bs ruling using the general welfare clause. I'm somewhat surprised that a person of your wisdom and education cannot see the blatant flaw in that ruling.


I don't care much about politics (people), I do have an interest in the government I live under and how it came about, how it evolved, and where it's heading.

I don't question the Constitution like some here do, it's not 'Right' or 'Wrong', it's a 'Thing', a 'Tool'.
The framers of that Constitution were educated in previous forms of government, framed our current Constitutional Government with as many checks & balances as was practical, separated the Executive, Legislative & Judicial branches and mandated each with specific mission charters with specific rules.

I did not spend my entire adult life in study of the Constitution and the legal/judicial system, I do not have the specific skill set and education to second guess the Supreme Court.
Adding to that, exactly NO ONE this side of the Supreme Court has the required education & skills to second guess the Supreme Court.

If *YOU* (personally) 'Believe' the Constitution is wrong, and the Supreme Court made a mistake, that's your *Personal* opinion and should be stated as such instead of delivered as a statement of facts.

If *You* (personally) are qualified to deliver a educated, learned opinion of fact, then give us credentials, what law school did you attend, when/where did you pass the bar, which collages did you teach, when were you a member of a law review, where did you sit on the bench, etc?

In two minutes I found 17 Supreme Court challenges to the Social Security Act of 1935, on the Supreme Court website that lists all appeals submitted and all cases accepted, with 17 of those being accepted and ruled on.

What I understand and accept, my personal feelings on decisions are limited to 'Agree' or 'Disagree' and accept the law of the land.
I don't make blanket statements about 'Right' or 'Wrong', I don't rant & rave, I don't throw down blanket statements, instead I simply fall back on facts...

Beating a dead horse isn't in my nature, when I find something intolerable, I go hire an actual legal professional to deal with it, much like the people/groups did when they *Think* something is 'Wrong' or 'Unconstitutional' instead of wasting time complaining on a random internet forum that accomplished nothing and contradicts all facts of existing law and Supreme Court decisions.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Hiro said:


> I believe I provided a link to why the Revolution started in words of those that started it. Your version is, once again, meaningless in the face of facts provided.
> 
> And as an aside, those that were the leaders of the Revolution, by and large, were doing quite fine economically under the Imperialist economic model.


Actually, if you cared to read actual history, you would find the colonies did fairly well IN SPITE of Monarchy rule, on a thriving gray/black market.
Free trade outside the laws laid down by the Monarch and Empire.
This would be why the British government, with no representation from the colonists, enacted the Navigation Acts starting in 1609, that's 167 years BEFORE the armed revolutionary revolt in 1776.

Labor strikes and confederations (forerunners to Unions) started BEFORE the Revolutionary War trying to combat the Imperial/Capitalist economic system, and if you had cared to read the links provided to you on a platter, you would know this also.

I understand you are locked into a specific political dogma, I just don't understand why.

*There are no 'Conservatives' on Mt. Rushmore, none of the founders were 'Conservatives',*
A revolutionary or activist by definition wants change.
The founders were pro labor activists, pro self governing, anti-Imperialistic/Capitalistic economy revolutionaries.
Later government Representatives were anti-Monopoly/Capitalism attempting to stop takeover of entire market segments like petroleum, steel, telecommunications, banking/capital financing.

What I see is like childrens rebellious behavior against parents 'Believing' there is noting wrong with binge drinking and binging on drugs against all facts & common sense, only a lot of people never grow out of this science & history denying, blaming the government for bad decisions like not watching the politicians THEY elected, spending all their time avoiding blame for bad decisions instead of fixing the problems...
It just seems immature and childish to me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lincoln and Roosevelt were hardly founders.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> (Plagiarized) Editorials mean nothing in the face established law simply because 'Personal Opinion' is not established law, not peer reviewed, contains no facts or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My skill set regarding the constitution is primarily based upon my ability to read and comprehend simple English. When the tenth amendment declares only those powers specifically declared in our constitution are valid, it makes it quite clear that charities, old age pensions, health care insurance..... are not among the powers granted.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My skill set regarding the constitution is primarily based upon my ability to read and comprehend simple English. When the tenth amendment declares only those powers specifically declared in our constitution are valid, it makes it quite clear that charities, old age pensions, health care insurance..... are not among the powers granted.


Since the Social Security Act was specifically challenged in the Supreme Court on the 10th Amendment grounds, and the Supreme Court upheld the Social Security Act,
And that Supreme Court was specifically created, chartered & charged with deciding what's Constitutional or not,
I'm going with the Constitution, Supreme Court, Rule Of Law since your argument has seen it's day in court and was struck down.

At this point, *YOU* have two options,
1. Accept the Constitution and rulings by the Supreme Court.
2. Get an education in the Judicial system, or hire yourself an actual, educated, accredited and qualified member of the Judicial system and challenge the Social Security Act of 1935 on grounds of being unconstitutional on grounds it opposes/breaks the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Continuing to argue against the FACT this has already passed both houses of congress, the president signed it into law, it went through 17 Supreme Court challenges by specifically educated, accredited, qualified members of the Judicial system,
Was decided by the Supreme Court, the proper and highest level of that Judicial system chartered, empowered, charged specifically with deciding what Constitutional or not...

*YOUR* (singular) 'Opinion' and/or 'Belief' just wastes everyone's time.
Don't just get up and DO SOMETHING, sit there and complain on a random internet forum...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

*There are no 'Conservatives' on Mt. Rushmore, none of the founders were 'Conservatives'.*



AmericanStand said:


> Lincoln and Roosevelt were hardly founders.


Way to miss the comma, ( , )

-----------------
com·ma
/ˈkämə/
_noun_

1.
a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list.
-----------------

Way to miss the comma, and the point entirely, or are you trolling again by intentionally refusing to acknowledge what was actually written?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My skill set regarding the constitution is primarily based upon my ability to read and comprehend simple English. When the tenth amendment declares only those powers specifically declared in our constitution are valid, it makes it quite clear that charities, old age pensions, health care insurance..... are not among the powers granted.


Isn't that something. There is what the constitution says, and then there is what the pointy headed guy on tv says.
There is what the Bible says, and then there is what the priest tells you it says.
There is what a Yugo looks like, and then there is what the Yogu salesman tells you it looks like.
Seems to be a pattern.
Common cents (that's with a 'C' for those in the gallery) is worth more than a dollar's education and you can't make up for it with gaslighting.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Isn't that something. There is what the constitution says, and then there is what the *pointy headed guy on tv* says.


Exactly, but not the way you are implying.

The actual, educated, experienced and qualified experts charged with deciding what's Constitutional or not have spoken, 17 times that a 2 minute search turned up...

*Why on Earth would I listen to a random "pointy headed guy on TV" (or the internet) says when it directly opposes the facts of the situation?

Answer: No one should, and that's why I don't.
Not interested in 'Agendas' or 'Dogma', I want facts...*


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> *There are no 'Conservatives' on Mt. Rushmore, none of the founders were 'Conservatives'.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I take it you would behead me for having missed a comma in your epistle of biblical proportions?
And wait don’t commas usually separate related items?
And don’t leave yet there’s even more in this deal, wasn’t that lazy thieving sneaky Lincoln a conservative?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

No actually I don't think Lincoln would be considered a conservative in anyone's definition.


AmericanStand said:


> I take it you would behead me for having missed a comma in your epistle of biblical proportions?
> And wait don’t commas usually separate related items?
> And don’t leave yet there’s even more in this deal, wasn’t that lazy thieving sneaky Lincoln a conservative?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why not ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Americanstand, there are a lot of things about Lincoln that might interest you, ye of old Illinois heritage.
He was not like a lot of what the public and media portray him as.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I take it you would behead me for having missed a comma in your epistle of biblical proportions?
> And wait don’t commas usually separate related items?
> And don’t leave yet there’s even more in this deal, wasn’t that lazy thieving sneaky Lincoln a conservative?


Lying, sneaky and thieving? Yes on all counts.... Conservative? Not even close!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'm pretty sure he was against biscuits and gravy too.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> I'm pretty sure he was against biscuits and gravy too.


Wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wouldn't surprise me.


I know of a woman buried not 20 yards from his tomb in Oak Ridge Cemetery.
She hasn't said a good thing about him since she died.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Of course it could have been Mary Todd. She didn't handle good southern cooking well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Honest woman!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Americanstand, there are a lot of things about Lincoln that might interest you, ye of old Illinois heritage.
> He was not like a lot of what the public and media portray him as.


I live with his heritage every day go ahead enlighten me.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Well, while your governors are being tossed into prison and the tax man rubs his chin while gazing at your property, you can chew on a few of these.
Enjoy.

He is in the wrestling hall of fame.
He created the secret service.
He was a free market capitalist.
Even though DC was a "gun free zone" (no gun fire allowed) Lincoln would stand outside near the national mall popping of repeaters and muskets. Who ya' gonna call on that?
Bad milk killed his mother (see the long and heated HT thread on selling cows milk)
He was self educated. Not sure he would be qualified to speak about internet forum topics in this age...
He practiced law without a degree, however he was a licensed bartender
He enjoyed Oyster Stew and Gingerbread Men cookies,,,ok
Same birthday as Charles Darwin
Originated the national banking system
Had a dog named Fido
Originated the federal income tax


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> Actually, if you cared to read actual history, you would find the colonies did fairly well IN SPITE of Monarchy rule, on a thriving gray/black market.
> Free trade outside the laws laid down by the Monarch and Empire.
> This would be why the British government, with no representation from the colonists, enacted the Navigation Acts starting in 1609, that's 167 years BEFORE the armed revolutionary revolt in 1776.
> 
> ...


Not one thing in this ramble addresses anything that was posted in the quote you are supposedly addressing. You posited incorrectly or at the very least inadequately of the origins of the American Revolution. The origins and the reasons were written down quite plainly for the world to see at the time. If you choose not to acknowledge it, then no one can do anything about that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> Well, while your governors are being tossed into prison and the tax man rubs his chin while gazing at your property, you can chew on a few of these.
> Enjoy.
> 
> He is in the wrestling hall of fame.
> ...


His secret service was obviously lacking.
His unconstitutional income tax was necessary to finance his unconstitutional war. 
Plain and simple the man was a tyrant.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Well, while your governors are being tossed into prison


 Yes just another part of his legacy to us you forgot the two cases of his that are taught in law school. 
The first one is about how he lost the case defending the inventor of the steel tombstone.
And the second one is how he successfully overcharged a railroad company for legal work.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

He was an awful lawyer and his work as President has been somewhat misrepresented.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

WHAT!?
No memes or InfoWars links to go with at that triggered indignation?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Did the internet run out of 'Alternative' history and pointless memes?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)




----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Apparently not...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JeepHammer said:


> I don't question the Constitution like some here do, it's not 'Right' or 'Wrong', it's a 'Thing', a 'Tool'.
> The framers of that Constitution were educated in previous forms of government, framed our current Constitutional Government with as many checks & balances as was practical, separated the Executive, Legislative & Judicial branches and mandated each with specific mission charters with specific rules.
> 
> I did not spend my entire adult life in study of the Constitution and the legal/judicial system, I do not have the specific skill set and education to second guess the Supreme Court.
> ...





JeepHammer said:


> Since the Social Security Act was specifically challenged in the Supreme Court on the 10th Amendment grounds, and the Supreme Court upheld the Social Security Act,
> And that Supreme Court was specifically created, chartered & charged with deciding what's Constitutional or not,
> I'm going with the Constitution, Supreme Court, Rule Of Law since your argument has seen it's day in court and was struck down.
> 
> ...


Although you referred mainly to the Social Security Act and questioning *Supreme Court* decisions, I wanted to address the idea that only a bona fide lawyer and legal scholar could or should raise constitutional issues before the SCOTUS. As a matter of fact they only recently enacted that very policy and don't be surprised if a non lawyer petitions that ruling and gets it reversed. It might actually be someone from this very forum, ya never know. 

Anyway one of the landmark decisions of our time was _Gideon vs. Wainwright._
If it weren't for an uneducated vagrant who dared challenge the PTB, we might still;l be ignoring the 6th Amendment today.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/so-who-can-argue-a-case-in-front-of-the-supreme-court/

The irony wasn't lost on me though. It was the fact that he DID act as his own attorney and convicted was the very reason he was successful in appealing to the SCOTUS.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Diserves repeating before the right angle tangents & personal attacks when ration, reason & facts fail and the thread gets locked or deleted.


It's always someone else's fault, huh?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> This discussion so clearly shows HT GC as a theater of the absurd.


That's putting it mildly.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Did the internet run out of 'Alternative' history and pointless memes?


If someone picks a fight, and no one is there to hear him......

Does he get clobbered anyway?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> If someone picks a fight, and no one is there to hear him......
> 
> Does he get clobbered anyway?


Silence speaks volumes.

So, the answer is, YES.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ever been to a festival and the beer tent was way out in the middle of a low spot.
And then it begins to rain and slogging through the mud to get to the beer tent is a pain. 
And the more you drink the bigger a pain in the but it gets to be and of course everybody else has been drinking and making that same trip to the beer tent so the mud gets deeper. 
And at some point you decide that it just isn’t worth the trip.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever been to a festival and the beer tent was way out in the middle of a low spot.
> And then it begins to rain and slogging through the mud to get to the beer tent is a pain.
> And the more you drink the bigger a pain in the but it gets to be and of course everybody else has been drinking and making that same trip to the beer tent so the mud gets deeper.
> And at some point you decide that it just isn’t worth the trip.


Sounds like it's time to send the wife for the next round!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever been to a festival and the beer tent was way out in the middle of a low spot.
> And then it begins to rain and slogging through the mud to get to the beer tent is a pain.
> And the more you drink the bigger a pain in the but it gets to be and of course everybody else has been drinking and making that same trip to the beer tent so the mud gets deeper.
> And at some point you decide that it just isn’t worth the trip.


Lol, it depends.
Good liquor, yes.
Bath tub beer from a made up recipe, not today thanks.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> weird
> This nation was formed with communism and seems quite happy with it today.
> I mean after all most towns now have a community building paid for by the government where obviously we can get together and commune.
> Lots of community water companies community electric companies etc.
> ...


I thought you may like this reference: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/03/publick-religion-adams-v-jefferson. Additionally, most folks don't realize that the first taxes imposed were only supposed to be for roads and bridges in order to allow... capitalism and free commerce... for the communities themselves and not for the benefit of the government. Community is not the same as communism. 

In fact, our first war memorial, now at the Naval Academy, states “millions for defense, not one cent for tribute” and refers to the Pasha of Tripoli, and the amphibious assault mentioned in the Marine Corps Hymn http://acdwyer.com/stories/millions-for-defense-not-one-cent-page-1.php


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

bubba42 said:


> I thought you may like this reference: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/03/publick-religion-adams-v-jefferson. Additionally, most folks don't realize that the first taxes imposed were only supposed to be for roads and bridges in order to allow... capitalism and free commerce... for the communities themselves and not for the benefit of the government. Community is not the same as communism.
> 
> In fact, our first war memorial, now at the Naval Academy, states “millions for defense, not one cent for tribute” and refers to the Pasha of Tripoli, and the amphibious assault mentioned in the Marine Corps Hymn http://acdwyer.com/stories/millions-for-defense-not-one-cent-page-1.php


I should have included that this ‘tribute‘ was “taxation” placed upon our agricultural goods By the Pasha’s pirates which inhibited our free commerce.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Community communism and commune are all related. 
Not just in the root of the word but in the reality. 
In my village can you put the community word into it it is something for everybody or possibly from everybody it does something good for all of us there’s nothing wrong with that community is not a dirty word. 
It’s very much the same in a commune and communist is simply a description of the people involved in either of those activities
Now the union of Soviet Socialist republics as co-opted the word communist and polluted it and turned it into a description of a way of government that takes away a lot of individual rights
Don’t confuse US SR’s corruption of communism as a form of government with communist 
community or communist
For some reason we get hung up on words and then really miss use them and turn them into something they are not
For instance those of us in the United States of America do not live in a democracy believe in democracy is a really bad thing a lynch mob is it a small democracy
Thank God we live in a republic a constitutional republic


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Community communism and commune are all related.
> Not just in the root of the word but in the reality.
> In my village can you put the community word into it it is something for everybody or possibly from everybody it does something good for all of us there’s nothing wrong with that community is not a dirty word.
> It’s very much the same in a commune and communist is simply a description of the people involved in either of those activities
> ...


Communism is not a form of government per se either. It's main difference is that the people do not own the means of production. Everything essentially belongs to the state.... Land, buildings, tools, natural resources.... Everything. Individuals own very little. Mostly because they are paid very little. Of course they can buy groceries, smokes and booze etc if they have a few coins come payday but real property ownership is out of bounds. The state decides where you live and work and furnishes you with a few coins with which to buy your personal needs.... As they see fit. The major flaw in the plan is it lacks encentive for the individual to produce above minimum requirements. This coupled with usual burrocratic foul ups creates shortages of goods. Can't blame the workers, they get their wage wheather they work or not. Farmers don't care if things get planted on time.... They are only going to be tossed the same few coins either way. So what if yields are poor? As my dear old daddy would say..."that's a mighty poor way to run a railroad.".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Community communism and commune are all related.
> Not just in the root of the word but in the reality.
> In my village can you put the community word into it it is something for everybody or possibly from everybody it does something good for all of us there’s nothing wrong with that community is not a dirty word.
> It’s very much the same in a commune and communist is simply a description of the people involved in either of those activities
> ...


Communism is not a form of government per se either. It's main difference is that the people do not own the means of production. Everything essentially belongs to the state.... Land, buildings, tools, natural resources.... Everything. Individuals own very little. Mostly because they are paid very little. Of course they can buy groceries, smokes and booze etc if they have a few coins come payday but real property ownership is out of bounds. The state decides where you live and work and furnishes you with a few coins with which to buy your personal needs.... As they see fit. The major flaw in the plan is it lacks encentive for the individual to produce above minimum requirements. This coupled with usual burrocratic foul ups creates shortages of goods. Can't blame the workers, they get their wage wheather the work or not. Farmers don't care if things get planted on time.... They are only going to be tossed the same few coins either way. So what if yields are poor? As my dear old daddy would say..."that's a mighty poor way to run a railroad.".


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Communism is not a form of government per se either. It's main difference is that the people do not own the means of production. Everything essentially belongs to the state.... Land, buildings, tools, natural resources.... Everything. Individuals own very little. Mostly because they are paid very little. Of course they can buy groceries, smokes and booze etc if they have a few coins come payday but real property ownership is out of bounds. The state decides where you live and work and furnishes you with a few coins with which to buy your personal needs.... As they see fit. The major flaw in the plan is it lacks encentive for the individual to produce above minimum requirements. This coupled with usual burrocratic foul ups creates shortages of goods. Can't blame the workers, they get their wage wheather the work or not. Farmers don't care if things get planted on time.... They are only going to be tossed the same few coins either way. So what if yields are poor? As my dear old daddy would say..."that's a mighty poor way to run a railroad.".


EH? I still couldn't hear ya young man.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Communism is not a form of government per se either. It's main difference is that the people do not own the means of production. Everything essentially belongs to the state.... Land, buildings, tools, natural resources.... Everything. Individuals own very little. Mostly because they are paid very little. Of course they can buy groceries, smokes and booze etc if they have a few coins come payday but real property ownership is out of bounds. The state decides where you live and work and furnishes you with a few coins with which to buy your personal needs.... As they see fit. The major flaw in the plan is it lacks encentive for the individual to produce above minimum requirements. This coupled with usual burrocratic foul ups creates shortages of goods. Can't blame the workers, they get their wage wheather they work or not. Farmers don't care if things get planted on time.... They are only going to be tossed the same few coins either way. So what if yields are poor? As my dear old daddy would say..."that's a mighty poor way to run a railroad.".


You’re right the Russian system isn’t communism either governments the more awful they are it seems have to find some word that they can use for cover something it sounds good and they can just make some excuse is that the employees otherwise known as citizens just aren’t doing their job right


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I guess I'm a communist. Gathering up pears, since I canned all I want, the neighbors have their fill, I'm taking excess to the food bank for communist (community) consumption.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> I guess I'm a communist. Gathering up pears, since I canned all I want, the neighbors have their fill, I'm taking excess to the food bank for communist (community) consumption.


Would that make you a comrade to your neighbors?


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> I guess I'm a communist. Gathering up pears, since I canned all I want, the neighbors have their fill, I'm taking excess to the food bank for communist (community) consumption.


Now don't get snarky - this capitalist volunteers at the food bank. But as a communist, you would be compelled to ‘work’ at a food bank, but as a capitalist, it is clearly volunteering  so I think you are a true blue capitalist


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> Would that make you a comrade to your neighbors?


Might even be commissar.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Some seem to confuse charity with communism

Charity is based on giving

Communism is based on taking 

I live in a community of capitalist


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

bubba42 said:


> Now don't get snarky - this capitalist volunteers at the food bank. But as a communist, you would be compelled to ‘work’ at a food bank, but as a capitalist, it is clearly volunteering  so I think you are a true blue capitalist


 Lol
No one is compelled to work for the community


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Some seem to confuse charity with communism
> 
> Charity is based on giving
> 
> ...


 I think you have that all wrong. No one is compelled to be part of the commune or part of the community so that is their choice to communist. 
Don’t let the USSRPervert the word for their ambitions


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you have that all wrong. No one is compelled to be part of the commune or part of the community so that is their choice to communist.
> Don’t let the USSR Pervert the word for their ambitions


Now there is something I agree with!

While Karl Marks gets a bad rap, he was a intellectual and never started a commune or forced anyone to do anything.
His idea was most certainly twisted & perverted by Lenin & Stalin.

'Communism' most certainly comes from the barrel of a gun,
While you CHOOSE to join in a Democracy.



mreynolds said:


> Would that make you a comrade to your neighbors?


With exception to the guy with all the political signs and flags, I'm pretty sure they just call me 'Neighbor'.
The guy that filters everything through his brand of personal political lens, I'm anything he can think of that's derogatory...

I find it funny, 11 or 12 years ago when I rounded up a bunch of loafers visiting and we went and set the trusses on his garage and got the sheeting on the roof we were 'Great Guys'...
We were 'Good Neighbors' when we helped clean up storm damage that knocked 3 big trees down on his property...

Somewhere around 8 or 9 years ago, he broke a brain axle and made a 'Hard Right' turn into the guardrail of confusion and now we are 'Dirty Communist', 'Baby raping snowflake liberals' etc.

Ironic because it wasn't our yards that sprouted political signs, flags, the neighbors didn't change I could tell... We still have coffee at the local dinner and socialize like we always did.

My solar panels didn't make his dentures rattle before the yard signs, he even looked them over, commended me for cleaning up 'Junk' and ask questions, now it's his favorite insult along with some cuss words...
Since my solar is 3-1/2 miles in the other direction he travels, and they can't be seen from the county road, I have no idea why they bother him so much...

One of his favorite targets is a 'Dirty Hippie' that's an 81 year old widow that has a sort of greenhouse in her sun room that can be seen from the dinner. 
I find her to be a pleasant person in every way... Never a bad word about anyone, which is why she won't talk about him! 

To each their own...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yep.
Wouldn't it be nice if simply attaching a label cleared up every misunderstanding?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> Wouldn't it be nice if simply attaching a label cleared up every misunderstanding?


Confusion creates fear and anger...
Defining helps clear up confusion.

Labels for people or groups seem to be a lazy way out to me.
Don't know about everyone else...
Since I don't subscribe to any political or religious dogma, I'm not locked into 'Lumping' anyone into the label.

I still drag the snow out of my political neighbor's drive, he has a disabled wife that needs to get around and she always thanks me when I do...
I think he would rather throw rocks at me if he could, but she lets him know where the line is drawn...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JeepHammer said:


> Confusion creates fear and anger...
> Defining helps clear up confusion.
> 
> Labels for people or groups seem to be a lazy way out to me.
> ...


You darn communist, you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Timing makes a lot of difference if you were a liberal Democrat in JFK’s day at this point you’re probably a very conservative Republican even though your believes have not changed at all so what did you do as far as party did you change parties that’s a very difficult choice to make for most people it is entirely too big a piece of their identity


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

So, Jeep: I take it you prefer the California model?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you have that all wrong. No one is compelled to be part of the commune or part of the community so that is their choice to communist.
> Don’t let the USSRPervert the word for their ambitions


The USSR failed remember? It no longer exists.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Oxankle said:


> So, Jeep: I take it you prefer the California model?


I have no idea what that is and since I don't live in California, won't waste time on it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The USSR failed remember? It no longer exists.


Really it seems like there’s something there taking up the space


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Really it seems like there’s something there taking up the space


Yep, a bunch of small countries still exist... But the USSR is no longer in existence. It failed and fell apart.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The USSR failed remember? It no longer exists.


The U.S.S.R. was never communist.
That was just a label we used for them.
Kinda like a nylon sweater that looks like wool, ya gotta pay attention to what the label really says.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, a bunch of small countries still exist... But the USSR is no longer in existence. It failed and fell apart.


The US is a bunch of countries united in one goal. 

Or we used to be anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> The US is a bunch of countries united in one goal.
> 
> Or we used to be anyway.


I think most still are.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> The *US is a bunch of countries *united in one goal.
> 
> Or we used to be anyway.


I don't think it is now.

That battle has been fought since our founding.

Hamilton was the leading advocate of a strong central government. Jefferson was the lead on a smaller federal government, with very limited powers left with the states. We have swung (to my dislike) toward what Hamilton wanted.

Hamilton sought a strong central government acting in the interests of commerce and industry. He brought to public life a love of efficiency, order and organization. In response to the call of the House of Representatives for a plan for the "adequate support of public credit," he laid down and supported principles not only of the public economy, but of effective government.​
Hamilton pointed out that America must have credit for industrial development, commercial activity and the operations of government. It must also have the complete faith and support of the people. There were many who wished to repudiate the national debt or pay only part of it. Hamilton, however insisted upon full payment and also upon a plan by which the federal government took over the unpaid debts of the states incurred during the Revolution.

Hamilton also devised a Bank of the United States, with the right to establish branches in different parts of the country. He sponsored a national mint, and argued in favor of tariffs, using a version of an "infant industry" argument: that temporary protection of new firms can help foster the development of competitive national industries. These measures -- placing the credit of the federal government on a firm foundation and giving it all the revenues it needed -- encouraged commerce and industry, and created a solid phalanx of businessmen who stood firmly behind the national government.


Jefferson advocated a decentralized agrarian republic. He recognized the value of a strong central government in foreign relations, but he did not want it strong in other respects. Jefferson once said "I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom. Jefferson sought to establish a federal government of limited powers. Jefferson favored the liberty of the individual and the community, [I guess he was a communist @AmericanStand] and he had in mind certain reforms that he felt would enhance them.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/...national-government/hamilton-vs-jefferson.php​


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Exactly


----------

