Capitalism vs Communism

[razoredge]

The example of the USSR is completely equivocal. The Soviet Union failed miserably as a socialist political system. The lowest levels of society were given wealth and land, but these concessions were granted at the expense of the more successful landowners. Wealthier farmers and agriculturalists were divested of their land and property, arrested, and imprisoned. The poorest members of society were taken care of, while those who carried the actual economic burden of the country were neglected and intentionally harmed.

Furthermore, those in power kept most of the wealth for themselves, and there was no "equal distribution of funds" between them and the poor. Basically, the USSR is historical proof that communist/socialist political systems provide a pathway to totalitarian states, as F.A. Hayek asserts in The Road to Serfdom. I believe that states of such enormous size and power cannot exist as successful collectivist powers. They inevitably tend towards totalitarianism.

I wouldnt argue that socialism and communism have not proven to fail, but given the current times and many in the past as well, I would not argue that capitalism is not full of fail itself.

Russian serfdom had the serfs (lowest levels of society ) performing the work necessary to make the landholders wealthy. It stands to reason that any uprising against this kind of abusive system would result in concessions against the repressors. Anything born of this kind of anger will result in a big mess that tends toward totalitarianism, would it not ?

At the same time it seems to me that capitalism feeds into a form of monetary totalitarianism that still ties the hands of the vast majority of a population, as well as minimal financial stability for workforces as well as small businesses and start up businesses. It seems everyone is always on the border of success or failure.

I would never support "equal distribution of funds" in any case. Various skills, contributions, production and intellegence deserve to be awarded. I only question and oppose how the scales of balance became so far tipped to one side when any countrys government proclaims to be about its people."serve and protect"... "everyone needs to make sacrifices"... "we are all in this together"... yarite!

I find it hard to support either capitalism or communism as either have been applied or attempted. Isnt there any system that can be reasonably devised that at least attempts to harness the failures of both and offers some form of stability and equilibrium in this fucked up world ?

 

[Death Aflame]

I find it hard to support either capitalism or communism as either have been applied or attempted. Isnt there any system that can be reasonably devised that at least attempts to harness the failures of both and offers some form of stability and equilibrium in this fucked up world ?

Mutualism attempts to be a synthesis of free markets and socialism. It's worth checking into.

 

[Death Aflame]

Basically, the USSR is historical proof that communist/socialist political systems provide a pathway to totalitarian states, as F.A. Hayek asserts in The Road to Serfdom. I believe that states of such enormous size and power cannot exist as successful collectivist powers. They inevitably tend towards totalitarianism.

Stalinist Russia was a very specific form of 'socialism' and thus cannot be applied as a broad sweeping example of the failure of all the multiplicity of socialisms that exist.

Edit: I agree with you on your last sentence. So much so, that I tend toward anarchist in my political position--all states tend toward the illegitimate authority and rule of a minority elite over the majority.

 

[razoredge]

Mutualism attempts to be a synthesis of free markets and socialism. It's worth checking into.

Would it be safe to think that "free markets" has become the detriment in my country (U.S.) currently because through globalism and NAFTA workers in my country have been forced to "compete" against those living in countries of lower standards? Paying the price for being born into a country that already advanced itself and raised its standards and cost of living ? While the greed that comes with being human and an economic system in place which supports a "fuck all" attitude and promotes exploitation of workers elsewhere ? AND uses that very principle to put its own workforce "in their place" ?

Which again brings us back to what could have been the benefits of nationalism and protectionism ?

 

[Dak]

I wouldnt argue that socialism and communism have not proven to fail, but given the current times and many in the past as well, I would not argue that capitalism is not full of fail itself.

Russian serfdom had the serfs (lowest levels of society ) performing the work necessary to make the landholders wealthy. It stands to reason that any uprising against this kind of abusive system would result in concessions against the repressors. Anything born of this kind of anger will result in a big mess that tends toward totalitarianism, would it not ?

At the same time it seems to me that capitalism feeds into a form of monetary totalitarianism that still ties the hands of the vast majority of a population, as well as minimal financial stability for workforces as well as small businesses and start up businesses. It seems everyone is always on the border of success or failure.

I would never support "equal distribution of funds" in any case. Various skills, contributions, production and intellegence deserve to be awarded. I only question and oppose how the scales of balance became so far tipped to one side when any countrys government proclaims to be about its people."serve and protect"... "everyone needs to make sacrifices"... "we are all in this together"... yarite!

I find it hard to support either capitalism or communism as either have been applied or attempted. Isnt there any system that can be reasonably devised that at least attempts to harness the failures of both and offers some form of stability and equilibrium in this fucked up world ?

Capitalism was working fine prior to money creation being handed to a private entity and wealth tied to a fiat currency.

 

[razoredge]

Capitalism was working fine prior to money creation being handed to a private entity and wealth tied to a fiat currency.

Sorry, my lack of knowledge would require more information than that to be a believer. So if you can give me more info... would be appreaciated.

As I recall post civil war capitalism didnt work very well for consumers or workforces. Nor did early industrial revolution capitalism until the work force put their foot down, made demands and petitioned the state for labor laws. All of which have been strategically undermined in the past 3 decades, by both the government, corporations and trading. What was not totally undermined was left in the dark ages as far as wages and secure benefits.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Capitalism was working fine prior to money creation being handed to a private entity and wealth tied to a fiat currency.

That it did. The gold standard saw us through the nation's inception, two industrial revolution, and an ill-advised world war. It has also seen civilisation through thousands of years. Silver too, it has often circulated alongside gold.

 

[razoredge]

Ah yes, and now we sift through entire mountains for the remaining little specs of "gold"........ for what ?

The reality of the "gold" nonsense need not be discussed, at best its just an ancient infatuation of men and women, some seem to not be able to break free of.

 

[Death Aflame]

Socialism doesn't have to be collectivism. Was National Socialist Germany collectivist?

Your first premise is true, since collectivism is generally a particular stream of socialism that is less extreme than communism in that it does not advocate for the abolition of money and free market economies, though it does advocate for democratic control of firms, worker councils, etc.

The same can't be said for the second one--national socialist Germany was not socialist in the slightest, despite the name, it was a fascist totalitarian regime that was economically centrist (the economy was partially planned by the state, though capitalist businesses and business owners were not the enemy, but ally to the state as taxes collected from their profits were of direct benefit to the government) and intensely authoritarian on the social level. Now this has clear analogues with Stalinist Russia, but with the key difference being that National Socialist Germany was not anti-capitalist as was the USSR (though it must be said that their system resulted in what could ostensibly be called State Capitalism--where the bureaucrats simply became the new capitalists). So while they were similar in terms of social orientation, they differed vastly in economics and racial politics.

Now is all national socialist theory akin to what happened under the Third Reich? I don't know, to be honest, as I haven't read much on the subject, nor do I care too (though all that BS you were spewing about kin altruism being scientifically proven and is thus proof of the legitimacy/requirement of nationalist/segregationist racial policies within socialism is ridiculous IMO). However, it should be exceedingly obvious that Hitler's Germany was not socialist.

 

[Death Aflame]

God forbid somebody rejects the hubris of those who presume to have the knowledge and moral authority to centrally plan society.

This is a bit of a strawman since not all socialisms are based on centrally planned economies. This is where libertarian socialism and anarchism more generally become relevant.

 

[Cythraul]

Capitalism was working fine prior to money creation being handed to a private entity and wealth tied to a fiat currency.

The Federal Reserve is in a very important sense not a private entity; it's secretive and mostly beyond public accountability, but that's not enough to make a private entity in the relevant sense. A monetary system consistent with free-market capitalism would be one in which issuance of currency would be done by private, competing institutions. One of the chief differences between this and what the Fed does is that the Fed's dominance over the money supply is not a result of free competition but rather of force and government fiat.

The reality of the "gold" nonsense need not be discussed, at best its just an ancient infatuation of men and women, some seem to not be able to break free of.

I can't for the life of me see how this is an adequate argument against the gold standard. Please do treat us to more of these intellectual gems.

This is a bit of a strawman since not all socialisms are based on centrally planned economies. This is where libertarian socialism and anarchism more generally become relevant.

I had neither of those latter things you mentioned in mind when I made that post. Maybe the contrast I should've made is between what I favor and economic planning as such insofar as it involves aggression.

edit: Actually, I've just realized that I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to. Are you objecting to my suggestion that socialism involves economic central planning or are you objecting simply to my suggestion that socialism involves economic planning as such?

I should also point out that by 'planning' I mean coercive interventions into voluntary arrangements, exchanges, contracts, etc. Obviously, it's logically possible that planning could occur via completely voluntary processes (though this is not how it usually works out in practice), which is something I do not object to on ethical grounds. I really do not know what role, if any, planning plays in libertarian socialism or left-wing anarchism. The post you quoted wasn't addressing socialism per se, but rather socialism imposed by government force. It's clear that I am addressing myself to statists, so to that extent I'm not attacking a strawman.

 

[razoredge]

I can't for the life of me see how this is an adequate argument against the gold standard. Please do treat us to more of these intellectual gems.

There can not be enough gold in the world, just sitting around to back all the money in circulation. Why should gold bare the burdon of population explosion. Whats gold have to do with the value of anyones productivity. I just see no significance of gold in the world anymore other than to make expensive pretty things... which is only in the eye of the beholder anyhow.

The rest is personal, I cant find the infatution with gold nor diamonds

Being as capitalism and "free market" got us in this big freekin mess, I'd like to see someone explain how these intellectual gems called capitalism, free market and economists are the ticket to a balanced world. "Economiists" are the ones that figured out how to manipulate "capitalism" out of balance, steal retirement funds, speculate leading to massive ballooned inflation. Its all been unproductive bullshit.

 

[Death Aflame]

I had neither of those latter things you mentioned in mind when I made that post. Maybe the contrast I should've made is between what I favor and economic planning as such insofar as it involves aggression.

edit: Actually, I've just realized that I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to. Are you objecting to my suggestion that socialism involves economic central planning or are you objecting simply to my suggestion that socialism involves economic planning as such?

I think you said something that implied, if you did not say outright, that socialism requires central economic planning (a la North Korea, USSR, etc.), this is what I was objecting too. Mutualism, for instance, is a socialist economic policy but that is still based around the premise of free markets and the absence of a state.

I should also point out that by 'planning' I mean coercive interventions into voluntary arrangements, exchanges, contracts, etc. Obviously, it's logically possible that planning could occur via completely voluntary processes (though this is not how it usually works out in practice), which is something I do not object to on ethical grounds. I really do not know what role, if any, planning plays in libertarian socialism or left-wing anarchism. The post you quoted wasn't addressing socialism per se, but rather socialism imposed by government force. It's clear that I am addressing myself to statists, so to that extent I'm not attacking a strawman.

Right, that is true. I should have probably just taken your post within the context of responding to Norsemaiden's (ridiculous) assertions.

 

[Cythraul]

There can not be enough gold in the world, just sitting around to back all the money in circulation.

How do you know this to be the case?

Why should gold bare the burdon of population explosion. Whats gold have to do with the value of anyones productivity.

Who's arguing that gold has some special relationship to the value of someone's productivity? It's just that gold happens to be rather well-suited as a form of currency, or so the argument goes.

I just see no significance of gold in the world anymore other than to make expensive pretty things... which is only in the eye of the beholder anyhow.

I can say the same thing about fiat currency.

The rest is personal, I cant find the infatution with gold nor diamonds

Arguments for the gold standard have nothing to do with gold infatuation. They only pertain to the gold standard's alleged superiority over fiat money.

Being as capitalism and "free market" got us in this big freekin mess, I'd like to see someone explain how these intellectual gems called capitalism, free market and economists are the ticket to a balanced world.

Wrong. What's going on right now is a prime example of a business cycle induced by a central bank. That is not a failure of capitalism.

"Economiists" are the ones that figured out how to manipulate "capitalism" out of balance, steal retirement funds, speculate leading to massive ballooned inflation. Its all been unproductive bullshit.

Who are these economists you're referring to?

 

[razoredge]

How do you know this to be the case?

It seemed to me if there was a surplus of gold we wouldnt be strip mining mountains for dust

Who's arguing that gold has some special relationship to the value of someone's productivity? It's just that gold happens to be rather well-suited as a form of currency, or so the argument goes.

My understanding has been that gold is not practical or abundant enough to be passed around as exchange for product or services. this is why I dont see its relevence in todays world. Might sound strange but I see most common man simply exchanging by a modern barter system. You work, that work is worth so much, shown in dollars. Theres something you need, you purchase it for its worth in shown dollars. Through all that I dont see gold entering the picture. Sadly I dont see how plastic ever managed to make its way, a weakness of man I suppose... plus some pressure, lifes a sales pitch.

I can say the same thing about fiat currency.

Yes Im stupid, I know what a Fiat is but have no idea what fiat currency is, did the Italians get into the money business

Arguments for the gold standard have nothing to do with gold infatuation. They only pertain to the gold standard's alleged superiority over fiat money.

I suspect man origional infatuation with gold and its use as real currency being something whomever the powers that be are just wont let go of. Again I dont see its relevence in todays world for the massive population. We just need solid numbers put on our income and solid numbers put on that which we need to purchase and from there we exchange dollars and cents... not "gold". Somewhere theres a comparitively small handful that just wont let go of their gold infatuation.... most likely because they have too much to lose.

Dont get me wrong, I'm open to explainations for that which I dont understand

Wrong. What's going on right now is a prime example of a business cycle induced by a central bank. That is not a failure of capitalism.

Then you dont think capitalism had been running amuck ?
The law of supply and demand manipulated into sick perversion ?
Labor forces pitted against each other by capitalist greed ?
How is it banks are not the epitomy of capitalism ?
How is it our governments were not envolved ?
How is it they should not be expected to be involved on a basis of control ? Their job is serve and protect, how could they sit back for decades and deny this was comming when all us DMF's could see it ?

Who are these economists you're referring to?

Anybody figureing out the ways to have manipulated what went down in... say... the past 15 years surely must have studied economics. You have been able to find them on all media sources for along time telling people how to think, what to do, stimulate, stimulate, stimulate... next thing you know everybody came and the economy fell asleep. It was all smoke and mirrors, stimulated euphoria... guess what it hit the wall

 

[Cythraul]

It seemed to me if there was a surplus of gold we wouldnt be strip mining mountains for dust

I'm not claiming that gold is superabundant; it's not (that's partly why it's so highly valued). The issue is whether there's enough of it. I'm not denying that there's a potential issue here, I just want to see some hard data to support the idea that there's not enough. I'm willing to admit that there may be a problem of having to peg dollars to extremely small amounts of gold or something of that nature.

My understanding has been that gold is not practical or abundant enough to be passed around as exchange for product or services. this is why I dont see its relevence in todays world. Might sound strange but I see most common man simply exchanging by a modern barter system. You work, that work is worth so much, shown in dollars. Theres something you need, you purchase it for its worth in shown dollars. Through all that I dont see gold entering the picture. Sadly I dont see how plastic ever managed to make its way, a weakness of man I suppose... plus some pressure, lifes a sales pitch.

One thing you should understand is that currency under a gold standard is often referred to as 'honest money' because under such a system the authorities wouldn't be allowed to inflate the crap out of the money supply. I think that is one of the main reasons that some people prefer the gold standard over fiat currency.

Yes Im stupid, I know what a Fiat is but have no idea what fiat currency is, did the Italians get into the money business

Fiat currency is currency that derives its status as legal tender from government fiat. It's not backed by hard commodities like gold, silver, etc.

I suspect man origional infatuation with gold and its use as real currency being something whomever the powers that be are just wont let go of. Again I dont see its relevence in todays world for the massive population. We just need solid numbers put on our income and solid numbers put on that which we need to purchase and from there we exchange dollars and cents... not "gold". Somewhere theres a comparitively small handful that just wont let go of their gold infatuation.... most likely because they have too much to lose.

Dont get me wrong, I'm open to explainations for that which I dont understand

Historically, gold and silver were able to outcompete other commodities for status as currency. To see why, I'll quote from Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed:

Why gold and silver? (And to a lesser extent, copper, when the other two were unavailable.) Because gold and silver are superior in various "moneyish" qualities-qualities that a good needs to have to be selected by the market as money. Gold and silver were highly valuable in themselves, for their beauty; their supply was limited enough to have a roughly stable value, but not so scarce that they could not be readily parcelled out for use (platinum would fit into the latter category); they were in wide demand, and easily portable; they were highly divisible, as they could be sliced into small pieces and keep a pro rata share of their value; they could be easily made homogeneous, so that one ounce would look like another; and they were highly durable, thus preserving a store of value into the indefinite future.

Then you dont think capitalism had been running amuck ?
The law of supply and demand manipulated into sick perversion ?
Labor forces pitted against each other by capitalist greed ?
How is it banks are not the epitomy of capitalism ?
How is it our governments were not envolved ?
How is it they should not be expected to be involved on a basis of control ? Their job is serve and protect, how could they sit back for decades and deny this was comming when all us DMF's could see it ?

I lay the blame for our current mess on our central bank (the Federal Reserve), which is not a product of free-market capitalism. It's a quasi-governmental institution that has a monopoly over the supply of money in this country. It has the (unlimited?) power to inflate our money which creates the conditions for economic booms and busts as a result of malinvestment and the subsequent correction of that malinvestment. You can't blame free-market capitalism for our current economic mess when it wouldn't have been possible without the malinvestment fueled by a quasi-governmental institution.

 

[razoredge]

Well there is obvioulsy much I dont even know about let alone understand to the full depth.

Surely no one could possibly expect that this massive population could still be passing around and chopping up gold trinkets and doing sofairly. then if there was all the gold in the world to back up paper money it still would have had to change significantly in value, which would still be inflation right ? Sounds more like an interest of those that have gold itself... to see its value inflated... on the "free trade market" which I believe it has.

My concerns with capitalism stem from being a blue collar labor worker for over 3 decade in the States. So I can not speak for elsewhere in the world.

What we(US) have seen "free market" accomplish in the last 30 years is the slow methodic selling off of America in the name of cheap foreign labor and minimal or non existant environmental restrictions.

We have seen company buy outs where new managment simply ran the companies into the ground sucking all the money that could be made with no further investment until it was so deep in the red and physically a shambles that it could be presented as a dead duck and shut down. Then further capitalized on by selling the remaining machinery and equipment.

This vast displacement of workforces and their accumulated pension funds was devestating. It did not happen because such products were no longer needed or used or bought in this country. It did not happen because of the "federal reserve" or because of any given "bank" itself. It happened because of the nature of mans greed, and the men/woman that had the power to abuse the nature and perfectly "legal" tool of capitalism for their fiscal ambitions and that alone.

through this we became a non productive country, a country that produced very little final product by comparision of that consumed. I believe this was once called gross national product. We just began exporting everything in its raw form, basically what I call "selling our souls" "selling off our assets". You can only get rid of something until there is nothing left.

I dont see how the housing "bubble" had anything to do with the federal reserve. I do see how the ever increasing emphisis placed on "credit" the past 15-20 years had its hand in the problem and many other credit problems. Finance firms making people think in terms of "payments" not actual final cost, with people weighing "payments" against their monthly net income as if any job has proven to be stable the past 20 years. None the less it was capitalisms law of supply and demand that brought housing to the 100-200% inflation it saw.

As well as flooding the country with immigrants raising demand for housing as people were pushed further from the uglyness accumulating in our urban areas. Flip side is housing and consequent infrastructer (tax dollars... people) needs is one of the few things that made labor force income for those previously booted out of the industrial and agricultural fields... and yes I say it was all done by grand design, carefully and methodically orchestrated over the course of a few decades by economy savy students... because there was big bucks in it for the few. But alas every race course has a finish line.

People now can refinance their homes for a lesser and more stable interest rate.... guess what... closing fees are $15,000. This is for property that already had the leg work done, the deed and lean searches, credit checks are all swift and electronic now anyhow. Whats with these $15,000 closing fees ? For filling out forms and diverting money ? Its a simple capitalistic blindfold waiting to snook those desperate souls into thinking they will save money in the long run when its only getting more money quick for capitalists. I fail to see where the federal reserve has anything to do with this.

What did the federal reserve have to do with oil prices ? If one wants to find the final culprit of the big crash they need not look any further than oil prices to find it. Common workers, those of the low national average income so conviently ignored shelling out nearly 50% of their monthly take just on transportation fuel, not to mention the annual cost of heating a house and oils impact on other utilities and house hold needs. In this counrty totally strapping the majority of the population to even make ends meet... let alone pay that inflated mortage payment and property tax burdon.

But amazingly all the powers that be are just going to keep trudging forward, pushing the envelope. The government ignoring the causes and have their hands tied in the name of democracy, freedom, free trade, globalism and capitalism in the first place. Oils on its way back up rapidly with those invested surely looking to recoup their losses and then some. With a government suggesting we all just abandon our investment in our current perfectly fine automobiles and go for the big loan on the inflated pricing of hybrids and other economy cars that still wont quite bring monthly fuel costs back to their previous level, let alone show long term savings. Invest in alternative heating sources for homes and home efficiency upgrades... when again it would take 10-20 years to balance one against the other... all at a time when everyone is strapped from the lower standard of living brought against us by A: being forced to compete with former third world wage levels. B: strapped from inflated housing prices C: Strapped from inflated oil prices at its far reaching level D: strapped from inflated insurance and healthcare costs

But everyone that still has expendable money wants us all to know....

"hey, were all in this together"

 

[Dak]

You are confusing free markets with government manipulated markets (what we actually have). Not to mention, I am going to assume you are in a union, since you are a blue collar worker who doesn't seem to understand economics and has an "us against the man" mentality when it comes to business. Unions have done more than their share of damage to capitalism.
Thank Bush Sr, among others, for bringing NAFTA about to expedite manufacturing loss, not the idea of capitalism.

The fact that you don't understand how the Fed helped to create the housing bubble also shows ignorance of simple economic cause/effect. (Hint: Look into the effects of low interest rates on loan markets).

Your prognosis of problems though is correct overall, regarding people thinking in terms of payments vs total cost, our country turning towards a service based (which is completely unsustainable) instead of a production based economy. Globalism vs protectionism is a huge problem here, which is separate matter from capitalism.

One reason oil is going up (and the cost of gas is going up faster than oil is) is because of the steady erosion of the dollar due to inflationary Fed practices. Inflation is theft, and the Fed is a master at it.

One thing you should understand is that currency under a gold standard is often referred to as 'honest money' because under such a system the authorities wouldn't be allowed to inflate the crap out of the money supply. I think that is one of the main reasons that some people prefer the gold standard over fiat currency.



Fiat currency is currency that derives its status as legal tender from government fiat. It's not backed by hard commodities like gold, silver, etc.



Historically, gold and silver were able to outcompete other commodities for status as currency. To see why, I'll quote from Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed:

Why gold and silver? (And to a lesser extent, copper, when the other two were unavailable.) Because gold and silver are superior in various "moneyish" qualities-qualities that a good needs to have to be selected by the market as money. Gold and silver were highly valuable in themselves, for their beauty; their supply was limited enough to have a roughly stable value, but not so scarce that they could not be readily parcelled out for use (platinum would fit into the latter category); they were in wide demand, and easily portable; they were highly divisible, as they could be sliced into small pieces and keep a pro rata share of their value; they could be easily made homogeneous, so that one ounce would look like another; and they were highly durable, thus preserving a store of value into the indefinite future.



I lay the blame for our current mess on our central bank (the Federal Reserve), which is not a product of free-market capitalism. It's a quasi-governmental institution that has a monopoly over the supply of money in this country. It has the (unlimited?) power to inflate our money which creates the conditions for economic booms and busts as a result of malinvestment and the subsequent correction of that malinvestment. You can't blame free-market capitalism for our current economic mess when it wouldn't have been possible without the malinvestment fueled by a quasi-governmental institution.

All truth.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Well said Darkyn, couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[razoredge]

For starters I worked self employed production pay in the timber industry from 83-00. My only source for low grade trees and tops which make great paper (pulp) moved out of the country to S.America. This was an entirely capitalistic move, the only hand the government had in it would have been environmental restraints and NAFTA. None the less it was done to capitalize on the cheap labor of poverty stricken countries.... and free abuse of environment. I should add that these paper companies showed record profits during the 90's and invested that in modern high-tec plants in S.A.... where on the other hand they did not invest a dime they didnt have to up here in the plants built turn of the last century. Record profits dealing with American workforces and any then current environmental restrictions... case you missed it the first time.

I only wish blue collar was all unionized as you just made the assumption. But no, most are subject to sucking up the drips some capitalistic pig is willing to let fall from his cup as it runneth over.

"Doesnt understand economics" and has the "us against the man mentality when it comes to business" Did I just tell you I ran my own business for 17 years ? In its entirety from the bull work to the mechanical to the paper shuffling... never mind, it was no big deal just something I enjoyed... but I am really hard to impress. None the less CEO's earning multiple millions a year, in many cases for failing companies... and you want to talk about Unions ? WTF Union do those ass-holes belong too... I want to sign up.

Only problem I have with Unions is the protectionizm of slackers and excessive greed, but as they say whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you have a CEO and his entourage smacking down a sickening volumn of money, who can blame the rest of the workforce for demanding all they can get too ? Which is a tiny tiny fraction by comparision... and after all we are talking capitalism here are we not

So you'd have to beat me over the head with a huge stupid mallet till death and on my last breath I still would not eat the straight from the can spoon fed bullshit the pro capitalism camp wants to feed.

I'm well aware of the effect of low interest rates... but who is it that has programed people to think a low interest rate is the time to jump out of ones socks and run to the nearest dump with cash and tax return in hand ? Just the Fed ? Not any of the medias economist advisors ? Not imposed capitalistic values in themselves ?

Globalism vs protectionism is a huge problem here, which is separate matter from capitalism.

Are you suggesting that globalism is NOT a product of capitalism ? I'd re-think that one.

One reason oil is going up (and the cost of gas is going up faster than oil is) is because of the steady erosion of the dollar due to inflationary Fed practices.

One reason... maybe. I can think of many others, and their effect on the dollar. None of that changes what went down in the first place which was wallstreet bullshit, a very entity that I have failed to understand my entire life.... what the fuck does wallstreeet and stock trading have to do with LIFE... yet somehow we have given it the power to control everything... and what a great job they have done..........

Inflation is also a natural order of things in a capitalistic society. If you can get more you demand more. You demand more and more and more until all wells are dry... thats capitalism, the law of supply and demand pressed into extremes through the human element of personal self interests (GREED). This is what economists go to school for, to learn how to manipulate the system with savy so they can be hired by firms that need to know how to get every last available buck in any given demograph.

All truth.

Half truth at best, truth in theory perhaps but that very theory has failed. The only thing controlling the supply of money is that which we are allowed to earn. The volume of substancial jobs in the country. The fed just prints the bills as they are needed (so I believe it should be, other games... well they are played by ALL). They dont control where those that have investment money can invest it. They dont control the wealth of the wealthy. They dont control my wealth. They dont control companies moving from my shores. Many things I feel they need to control, because its not like there has been any lack of wealth in this country, justs its extremely unbalanced distribution and how the comparitively small handful came by it.

On "gold", Im still failing to see how it can or should possibly be significant in a world as populated as this one has become. Talk about wasted tax dollars, I wonder where the funds spent building and protecting that silly vault of gold could have been better spent. From my view we(people) only need paper stating our worth to wager against the worth of any given product or survice we may require. Not a huge vault of gold to somehow declare "yeah, their labor is really worth X ". I truely suspect it is more of a international concern but of little importance to people that just want to live... decent... paid their honest fair share for their honest contribution to society. Their honest value on the big wheel of cogs that makes this whole thing go round.