No you read it with beer goggles on because you're emotional.This makes no sense at all. Practically all the white societal forces out there ENCOURAGE black people to seek wealth to the point that it's a religion. All the advertising, all the media, all the corporate world, all the educational world....even the churches have become pro-capitalist. Pro-capitalism has been a religion in the USA for over 100 years, to the point where Black men who advocated for anything else (including the one in my avi) were put onto a watchlist, tracked, harassed, even killed. What world are you even talking about?
Complete opposite of the truth - Capitalism is what REQUIRES constant population growth and constant economic growth to feed itself or the entire thing collapses, but the constant population and economic growth is what will cause the entire planetary ecosystem to collapse. How the fukk would capitalism allow the world to support more people when it's simultaneously encouraging every person in that world to keep burning through more and more goods?
You didn't think that shyt through at all before you wrote it.
Capitalism is the root cause of bad mental health.
- Thread starter Ethnic Vagina Finder
- Start date
Nope. Being broke is.
Facts and ironically they write an entire book why money is bad. After that they go on a public speaking tour , get rich and move to the same neighborhood/ neighbors they railed against.
It's rinse and repeat. Be sweet as bee piss to some cacs yet be as mean as throwing a live turkey into a wood chipper to their own folk.
Grown men whining about life not being fair
This is literally what every meaningful civil rights activist or social reformer in history has started from. Do you think you should just stan the status quo?
Reflected
Living in fear in the year of the tiger.
LMFAO Yeah, exactly, people have this odd misconception of FDR and his intentions at the time. I can understand propping him up because of what was introduced but the reasons for doing so were as you put it.
Personally, I don't argue for either side, I just argue for what I think practical in the current environment, America, I think it possible to shift towards that of philosophically backed SocDem nations, long before anything left of that, economically. But for whatever increases overall wellbeing, I will support that, at the end of the day. I'm still reading through this thread, I just stopped after laughing at this part of the argument.
The Gentleman
Always a Gentleman!
Go to Russia where the communist party is the second biggest party in the country. I bet you they have awesome mental health over there Between alcoholism and despotism.
Dorian Breh
Veteran
Dorian Breh
Veteran
This countries global dominance was built by FDRs socialist policies
You sound like you haven't read a book since middle school
Raphaello
All Star
I'm aware of companies ran by coops/worker owned and negative interest rates. Just a bit hesitant to see how it applies on a national scale and over the long term. I guess I'll have to do more research into how it can be implemented and what the transition from the system we have now to the one you're proposing will look like. ThanksThanks for the cosign on #3 and #4.
There are tons of successful companies that already run on #2, so you can't treat it as implausible - it already exists. You don't need to have any single way of doing it, you just need to ensure that every employee has a stake or a say, and how the business operates (for example, who to lay off during a downturn) is a decision collectively made by the employees or made by someone appointed to do that by the employees and looking out for their interests, rather than being made by an owner looking out for his own interests. And yes, leaving the company means cashing out your stake and losing your say in the company, why shouldn't that make sense? You still get recompensed for the value you put in while you were there, but you're not going to keep making money off of other people's work after you leave.
#1 doesn't require a government any more authoritarian than our current government, which already necessitates a constant regulation of the money supply and all asset classes. And yes, people WOULD move away from cash into other asset classes, because hoarding cash would become useless. But that's the whole point. It's never been cost-beneficial to hoard natural assets over time because most assets cost money and lose value over time unless you use they actively. If you hoard grain, for example, then it costs money to maintain it and you deal with steady losses over time unless you flip it. Money is complete unnatural in that it gains value over time rather than degrading and costs virtually nothing to store, so money broke the system. A negative interest system would simply make money more like all our other goods - a potential burden to hoard, so that flow is emphasized rather than stasis.
Your idea that it would halt progress is actually the exact opposite of what would happen - in a negative-interest system constant ingenuity and constant moving of assets is incentivized, rather than the current system which incentivizes hoarding. There's actually more process because the wealthy are forced to be more active and the access is more distributed.
If you want to read more, this guy breaks down what's wrong with interest:
Sacred Economics: Chapter 6, "The Economics of Usury" - Sacred Economics | Charles Eisenstein
The following chapter is from Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition, available from EVOLVER EDITIONS/North Atlantic Books. Return to the Sacred Economics content page here. In spite of the holy promises of people to banish war once and for all,sacred-economics.com
And here he breaks down how negative-interest economics would work:
Sacred Economics: Chapter 12, Negative-Interest Economics - Sacred Economics | Charles Eisenstein
The following chapter is from Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition, available from EVOLVER EDITIONS/North Atlantic Books. Return to the Sacred Economics content page here. Debt can endure forever; wealth cannot, because its physical dimension is subject to the...
Those are just two chapters pulled out of the book, there are other chapters that expound on those chapters and the whole book is fire.
Raphaello
All Star
FDR's socialist policies couldn't even end the great depression let alone give america dominance. WW2 and what followed with European/Asian countries being rebuilt and losing their colonies is what allowed america to take center stage in the world.
Breh, have you ever contributed anything to a conversation other than right-wing slogans?
Explain to me, why would capitalism, where only the children of the rich get the best resources and only those with capital have the best likelihood of profiting off of resources, somehow lead to more building than socialism, where all children get access to resources from which they can build and everyone has a shot?
If you knew jack shyt about US history you'd know that most of the building we did CAME from taking, dumbass. Taking land from Native Americans. Taking slave labor from Africa. Taking resources from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Using up the resources wantonly for profit and then moving on to exploit resources from somewhere else. If you knew jack shyt about business history you'd know that the ones who come up with the ideas aren't even the ones who get rich, the rich are the capitalists who stole the ideas and then used access to capital to exploit their advantage over others.
If everyone's kids are getting fed, getting good medical care, getting educated, and living in a safe neighborhood, you have a MUCH better chance to build shyt in your community. If only the rich get that, and the rich are mostly white, then everyone else keeps getting fukked.
Hmmm....do I like Hoover's impact on the Depression or do I like FDR's?
That recovery under FDR looks pretty fukking good compared to the crash under Hoover, doesn't it?
You do realize that hyper-capitalism is what caused the Great Depression, right? From 1921 to 1933 we had three consecutive right-wing Republican presidents who were extremely hands-off on the economy and let the capitalists do whatever they wanted, culminating with Hoover who was one of the most hands-off presidents of all time. And for that we got the worst economic collapse in history.
Yes, FDR's weak socialist tweaks (which as I pointed out were not a turn to socialism but an attempt to save capitalism by introducing just enough socialism to survive) made a massive positive difference but weren't enough to single-handedly escape from the Depression. If FDR had been more aggressive and turned to full socialism the recovery would have been much more complete. But that was never the objective. The objective was to do just enough to save the system, not to change the system.
By all accounts, the New Deal reforms are what led to the massive economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s. You blame WW2 for that but fail to explain how a bunch of expenditures overseas somehow caused the rapid internal growth in the USA that came after the New Deal.
Last edited:
I mean, it's a minor dream of mine to one day do something remarkable (I dunno, stop a school shooting or some shyt) that gets me invited onto some right-wing show like Rutger Bregman was just so I can expose them directly.
Of course, those bytch-ass little snowflakes would just refuse to air it like refused to air Bregman embarrassing Tucker.
