SkepticalOne wrote:
RemyBrown wrote:
This post you made is Rage Bait.
Is that your expert opinion?
Yes, most all of his posts are supposed to be Rage Bait, but that doesn't make him an expert by any stretch, if a Rage Bait post just makes people laugh at you, it's not very good Rage Bait, comically bad at it doesn't make you an expert.
Maybe his strength is humour.
Reading your comments and Double_R's makes me want to blast my own balls off.
Dude, presidents come and go, I don't know why you get so worked up. Chill out!!
Just make sure to vote for Marco Rubio next elections. He has better manners so I think you will like him.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion
Then perhaps you should have read the very next two paragraphs where I gave you two very detailed examples.
Maybe you're refering to what entrepreneurs can do with their money which has nothing to do with capitalism.
Nothing to do with capitalism? That literally *is* capitalism. What are you talking about?
So, capitalism is a tool, and as any tool that the man invents, we need a set of rules that prevents abuse from the people, because human beings are very corruptible.
Yeah, that’s literally what the “socialists” have been arguing for years now.
I really don’t think you have any idea what this conversion is actually about. Despite my clarifications earlier that socialism (as you are defining it) and capitalism are not separate things. Socialism exists within capitalism, the only question we have yet to settle on is how much socialism we want. You have yet to present a single argument to answer that question or even demonstrate that you are grasping the concept.
DoubleR is describing the result of accumulated investment as though the accumulation required no sacrifice, risk, competition, or restraint to create.
No, I was describing something entirely different, this is where your mind took it, and it only shows that the point went way over your head.
The implication isn’t “unfair”, it’s a demonstration of how in a capitalistic society those who accumulate wealth become better positioned to attain even more wealth. You talked about how Walmart accumulated that wealth over generations, that’s exactly my point. Folks like yourself love to talk about capitalism as a system where winners and losers are purely the result of one’s own abilities plus work ethic. My whole point is that it’s not.
Once upon a time, if you wanted to open up your own hardware store you’d find yourself competing against the other guy who opened up his own hardware store. In those days, hard work was likely to win out.
Today, if you want to open up a store of any kind you’re now competing against Walmart, Home Depot, Target, etc. These multi billion dollar companies are likely to crush you with their advertising, massive workforce and prices they’re able to offer due to their bulk purchases. Your best bet is probably not to compete with them, but rather to work for them.
This is why it rings hollow when people act like if you’re not rich it’s basically your fault. “Look at all these other people who did it”. Yeah, and look at how those people are an increasingly small piece of the population. That’s not an accident, that’s how capitalism works. That’s the point.
Shifting the words wealth and power to say that “power is largely zero-sum” reveals the deeper error. Political power is zero-sum... Prosperity isn't.
No one is claiming prosperity is zero sum. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about political power or economic power. Power by definition, is zero sum.
Do you deny they economic power is a real thing?
That's why I will NEVER see inequality as evidence that capitalism has failed.
Yet again, failing to understand what this conversation is fundamentally about. The question is about what kind of society we want and how much government intervention is necessary to attain it.
You don’t see inequality is an issue because in your mind it’s purely a result of work ethic ability, and life choices. The part people like you often blind yourselves to are the headwinds I talked about earlier. We do not ask come into this world with the same opportunity to succeed. Some get way more of a headstart, some barely ever had a chance. That’s the foundation of what we’re actually talking about.
Misterio wrote:
Reading your comments and Double_R's makes me want to blast my own balls off.
Dude, presidents come and go, I don't know why you get so worked up. Chill out!!
That's what they said about Hitler in 1939.
Just make sure to vote for Marco Rubio next elections. He has better manners so I think you will like him.
Sorry, but I'm voting for Jon Ossoff in 2026 AND 2028.
The implication isn’t “unfair”, it’s a demonstration of how in a capitalistic society those who accumulate wealth become better positioned to attain even more wealth.
Gross conceptualization error. In fact, Walmart has to take many more risks and work much harder than mom-and-pop to keep its market share. Large companies like that are a Dylan Mulvaney ad away from losing years of investments. The only thing you could rightly say is unfair is that some people were taught to avoid risks, and others were taught to take them. Risk takers may beget risk takers, but there is no guarantee it translates to wealth.
The benefit of risk taking is success brings huge profits.
Or bankruptcies.
You must be thinking about Trump with his 7 bankruptcies.
Thank you for taking the rage bait AI.
Trump even used AI to generate a video of him with Dolly Parton. People were disgusted.
Trump is using you.
Trump has no influence over Canadians.
He has access to Canadian AI.
Trump doesn’t even have access to Canadian maps. He misname Canadian lakes and even the boundaries between Canada and the US.
Canadian AI made Trump do it.
Double_R wrote:
Nothing to do with capitalism? That literally *is* capitalism. What are you talking about?
No, capitalism is not about doing anything you want with your money. Capitalism is basically free market and private property rights.
You might be thinking, as the socialist that you are, that bribing people is part of capitalism. No, it's not. As many posters already said, inmorality is not inherent to capitalism but to human nature.
I really don’t think you have any idea what this conversion is actually about. Despite my clarifications earlier that socialism (as you are defining it) and capitalism are not separate things. Socialism exists within capitalism, the only question we have yet to settle on is how much socialism we want. You have yet to present a single argument to answer that question or even demonstrate that you are grasping the concept.
If you refer to the economy system, then the answer is no, we don't need a single shred of socialism because socialism is doom.
Socialim is diametrally opposed to capitalism because it seeks a utopian equality by means of coercion. Human beings are different from one another, meaning that there will always be someone more capable than you when it comes to productivity and wealth creation. That's a fact and we don't have to feel sorry about that. The problem occurs when certain people show up to try to convince us that this is bad, that these people are greedy and only are making people poorer. This is BULLSHIT. Firstable, the natural condition of human beings is poverty, and thanks to these people called greedy by socialists is that most part of the humanity went out of poverty. So, it's a fallacy to say that capitalism creates poverty. It's all the opposite, capitalism let people get out of poverty.
I can argue that capitalism creates inequality but this is not something bad per se. Inequality is also a natural condition of humanity and we can't do anything about that. Unfortunately, socialists like you think in their twisted mind that they can play "god" in order to revert this natural condition. So, they propose stupid policies that limit capitalism to make wealth which eventually reduces its capacity to reduce poverty. Just look at what the socialist Mamdani is doing to New York, he's freezed the rent of certain apartments and now all the prices are skyrocketing. He promised to reduce housing rent but he's doing the exact opposite. This is the problem of socialists, they don't understand shit about economy, that's why they end up destroying it.
Maybe you are thinking that social assistance is part of socialism. I don't think so. To my knowledge, the US always had social assistance and it was never considered a socialist policy. Socialism looks basically for the change of the economic rules in order to limit the freedom of people to create wealth because socialists think stupidly that people are going to be better off with less inequality, which is a fallacy in all sense. People usually vote for socialists because they think that it's morally correct to limit people's wealth but the truth is that this is inmoral because it only demostrates the envy of socialists. Socialists don't give a fk about poor people, they only care about people not getting too wealthy, like an envious person that don't like to see you thriving.
Trump cannot read French, Canadians are bilingual.
62% of the people living in Canada's capital city can't speak French either. Ottawa is already set for a rename to Trumppawa.
Canada Gaza lot of immigrants that are still learning French and English. Trump’s knowledge of geography is so poor that he refers to everything as America. He thinks America has sunk low and wants to make America Great Again by annexing Greenland and adding Canada as the 51 state. Eanwhile America has lost its reputation globally under his leadership. The Iran war was a disaster and the cost of living unaffordable.
Yes, Canada is Gaza now, thanks to Trump.
The two Trump towers were removed from Canada because they were losing money.
There are no Trump towers in Gaza or Canada. That is why evil exists.
Trump went to Russia to build a Trump tower. But the Russians refused to loan him the money.
This is why evil exists in Russia. Trump is making you write these things.
Trump started selling Bibles to make America pray again. His towers were built for profit .
Thank you for taking the rage bait AI.
the real flaw of C/S is that it does not know how to create personal or collective wealth; it can only spend, not make
Yet again, what you are calling socialism is not an alternative to capitalism, it’s a set of policy ideas that exist within capitalism. So your separation of these two things leads to nothing but incoherence, you’re attacking a strawman.
The reason is not that capitalism is evil and C/S is good, but that both can be corrupted by greed.
Correct, greed is the issue. That’s exactly why any system in which the attainment of power can be used to increase one’s own power only has one eventuality - that power will continually end up in the hands of an increasingly minuscule portion of the population. That’s the entire point of what you guys are calling “socialism”. It’s about introducing an opposing force to ensure we can live in a society where everyone has a realistic chance at success if they work hard enough and contribute enough to their society.
Forced occupation of another's wealth is not creating wealth; it is simple theft.
Attaining wealth is only possible in an organized society that operates based on rules defining how wealth can be attained in the first place. You call it theft because you disregard that and pretend as if every person who became wealthy did it on their own. Bill Gates did not invent the internet. Elon Musk did not invent electric cars or space rockets. Every person who has ever became obscenely wealthy did it by utilizing the advances the society they were born into provided for them. Setting up the rules in such a way that says those people should be required to give back to that society is not unreasonable in the least, and sure as hell isn’t theft.
