Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[holyreyes]

There is a difference between being under-nourished and being mal-nourished. Mal-nourishment is the result of people making poor choices. Under-nourishment is the result of not having enough food to maintain normal weight. Pet food is just about the cheapest and most highly nutritious food in the supermarket. Yet people will choose junk food. How many people have vegetable gardens? How many people in apartments grow vegetables in pots? Being persuaded by TV commercials has a lot to do with people’s choices.

Thank you for elaborating.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Pope Francis may not be a Marxist, but the world will eventually be Socialistic. Capitalism is doomed as a fair and just economic system, and must be abandoned. Socialism is more ready to lend itself to true Humanitarian causes, which the vast number of people will support. Capitalism is inherently anti-humanitarian, and must not be allowed due to the human atrocities that it produces.

Doubtful. Support for this is condemned by the Church regardless.

But prove us otherwise. I have an honest question: how is the above NOT condemned by the Church? If it isn’t, show where the Church has supported the abolition of all private property and free enterprise.

Otherwise this is the most meaningless thread on CAF.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

The point of requiring a medallion is the same as any type of licensure: to keep out competition. You listed licensure as a common sense regulation, a medallion is a form of licensure. So that means that, to you, a medallion is common sense regulation.

More erroneous circular logic. This is how liberals muddy our social values by breaking apart a “right and wrong” issue into loosely related issues, morphing it into something else, and then re-applying it back to the first issue.

In this case OF COURSE not all licensure is good, nor is all licensure bad. I have a license to practice medicine which is needed to ensure public good. While YES this limits the number of people who can practice medicine, the purpose is to ensure providers are competent.

However, despite your perverse logic, this does NOT mean that all licensure is good. I see no need for a hairdresser to have a licensure, let alone a license that requires two years (and $25,000) of schooling like some places have. Nor do I see the need for a million dollar medallion. NEITHER of these licensure requirements have anything to do with the public good, but are strictly anti-competition measures that drive up the price of services.

 

[nmgauss]

1. Resources are not scarce. God always provide us with abundance. There is more than enough for everyone. It’s just that some part of the world has amassed, and now own and control these resources.
2. Perhaps, there is a philosophical, cultural problem with people having unlimited wants and desires. Religious saints and spiritual leaders tell us to live a life for the sake of others by relinquishing our worldly desires. As Pope Francis said, “The world tells to seek success, power and money; God tells us to seek humility, service and love.”

I never said the world is overpopulated. I, however, made a reference to a population demand under the umbrella of Capitalism is detrimental to our environment. The population of the USA, for example, having a smaller population than India or China use up more natural resources than any other countries in the world thereby leaving more carbon imprint in the environment.

If God always provides us with abundance, why is there so much poverty and misery in countries where people grow most of their own food? In third world countries, agriculture and animal grazing are the primary ways of making a living. However, massive amounts of over grazing have ruined millions of square miles of formerly lush pasture. Why didn’t God provide? Clean water has become a scarcity in many areas mostly because God has not provided enough water to support the millions which have exceeded the carrying capacity of their lands. Ocean fisheries have collapsed in recent years because of overfishing. Why hasn’t God provided more seafood so that people don’t starve? California is now in a state of extreme drought where farmers cannot produce the food they have doing for the last 70 years. Why doesn’t God make it rain?

As for carbon imprint, China is now the world’s largest polluter.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Do they have to be communists to use such words to bash Capitalism?

Not at all…just uninformed.

Christians, Catholics among others use such words to bash Capitalism…

Well they shouldn’t!

It is wrong, impolite, and shows ignorance of basic economics.

On the contrary, the communist government of China among other communist countries has embraced Capitalism as its new economic system. This has transformed its country and its nation into an economic power house. With renewed economic mind set, China’s aggressiveness being demonstrated at the West Philippine Sea and surrounding seas is the result of its confidence brought by CAPITALISM . With booming economy, the demands of its nation cannot adequately support the voracious appetite of the new bourgeosie who make up a large percentage of the population. China’s hunger must look elsewhere for RESOURCES to satisfy the bottomless pit demands of Capitalism and must bully, grab and steal the small neighboring nations resources for the sake of self-centered-interest of greedy economic system, boasting military power, and maintaining an ostentacious, pretentious, superficial prestige. So, how can you say that greed(self-interest), power and prestige that describe Capitalism are positive?

That whole statement could not be more wrong.

Firstly, The Free Market (Capitalism) and communism really cannot exist together. What you have in China, and any other totalitarian country that allows a “regulated” Market to operate, is a hybrid economic system. Neither communist or free. It is a recipe for failure. True communism and socialism will work well for awhile as long as people remain as sheep. When they notice that everyone is equal no matter how hard they work…they begin to ask themselves…why work? Then the purges begin…
A true Free Market provides an equal playing field because players are not equal. A person can work as hard as he wants and is justly rewarded while another person may be comfortable with a lesser reward can choose to work less.

Secondly, The fact that China is becoming more aggressive is the perfect example of why this hybrid system is doomed.

The essence of the Free Market’s foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges…the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.

A laissez-faire Free Market is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.

In the West, the very elite rich people in the US own and control more than half of the world’s wealth and resources while 1 out of 6 people live below poverty and go hungry. There is a wide discrepancy between the rich and the poor and that is a travesty!

There is no travesty is the fact that there are rich and poor. That is reality.
The real travesty is a government created “DEPENDANCE CLASS” of poor who believe that they can only survive by electing liberal politicians who will keep them dependent.

Likewise, it is also a travesty when one cannot see the injustices of greed, power and prestige being perpetuated under the umbrella of CAPITALISM…

There are those maligned words again…greed, power and prestige. Am I to understand that you are a Christian, Catholic Capitalism basher?

Furthermore, the natural and material Earth cannot naturally support the selfish, vacuumic demands of Capitalism. It is detrimental, intrusive and pompous to the natural enviroment.

Nonsense!

If it were not for the Free Market the natural resources of the Earth would not be available to as many people as they are.

There has not been a steady economic system in the world. It has always changed. Therefore, it is highly ridiculous to think the the world will remain CAPITALISTIC!

That is true. There has not been a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire Free Market since the 1890’s. If there was, the world would be a better place. Peace, justice and a standard of living beyond comprehension.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I beg to differ. Obese can be as malnourished as underweight. While you have skinny and underweight people in “socialist” countries who lack food, you have poor obese in “capitalist” countries who eat food that are cheap, low quality, has low nutritional value and high in fat. Moreover, hunger can be felt by all people regardless of their weight.

I never hear this “end of the world” propaganda from “LIBERAL LITERATE IDIOTS.” (lol) I, however, hear the consequences our actions have from lack of responsibilty has on our environment. As a matter of fact, this “end of the world” propaganda can be heard more often from the other side of the political spectrum.

There is virtually NO malnourishment in America. The number of people who are malnourished due to poverty (ie: not a mental health, medical or legal issue) approaches zero in America. I challenge you to find a single person in America who is malnourished.

Name a free-market “end of the world” theory? Yes, some uber-right wingers are building their zombie survival bunkers, but other than arguing for some financial collapses (such as the stock market collapse, housing bubble collapse, etc----all of which have HAPPENED!), the right wing doesn’t say the world is going to come to an end due to climate change, over population, H1N1, etc. The “end of the world” alarmist theories of overpopulation, global freezing, global warming, etc (ad nauseum) are strictly a left wing ploy to transfer more power from the people to the government…so that all of those “experts” that Robert believes so wholeheartedly in can take our money and give it to their friends.

Can you say Fiskars? How about Solyndra? How about Satcon? Or A123?? Evergreen Solar? These are just FIVE of the nearly ONE HUNDRED friends of the dem/Socialists who received big money grants from the Obama administration who, after cashing that big government paycheck, simply folded.

Well, not really Fiskars. They cashed the check, then they sold out to a Chinese company last week…so that load of our tax money went to not only Obama’s friends, but also to the Chinese.

 

[holyreyes]

If God always provides us with abundance, why is there so much poverty and misery in countries where people grow most of their own food? In third world countries, agriculture and animal grazing are the primary ways of making a living. However, massive amounts of over grazing have ruined millions of square miles of formerly lush pasture. Why didn’t God provide? Clean water has become a scarcity in many areas mostly because God has not provided enough water to support the millions which have exceeded the carrying capacity of their lands. Ocean fisheries have collapsed in recent years because of overfishing. Why hasn’t God provided more seafood so that people don’t starve? California is now in a state of extreme drought where farmers cannot produce the food they have doing for the last 70 years. Why doesn’t God make it rain?

God always provide. There are plenty of rain, water and fish… You might have drought in CA but you have abundance of rain and snow in the East Coast and in other parts of the world are submerged under water because typhoons.

Overfishing? Exactly, blame it on the demands of Capitalism… Fish are not the only food there is to eat…

As for carbon imprint, China is now the world’s largest polluter.

You just proved my point. Thanks to CAPITALISM!

 

[holyreyes]

There is virtually NO malnourishment in America. The number of people who are malnourished due to poverty (ie: not a mental health, medical or legal issue) approaches zero in America. I challenge you to find a single person in America who is malnourished.

Name a free-market “end of the world” theory? Yes, some uber-right wingers are building their zombie survival bunkers, but other than arguing for some financial collapses (such as the stock market collapse, housing bubble collapse, etc----all of which have HAPPENED!), the right wing doesn’t say the world is going to come to an end due to climate change, over population, H1N1, etc. The “end of the world” alarmist theories of overpopulation, global freezing, global warming, etc (ad nauseum) are strictly a left wing ploy to transfer more power from the people to the government…so that all of those “experts” that Robert believes so wholeheartedly in can take our money and give it to their friends.

Can you say Fiskars? How about Solyndra? How about Satcon? Or A123?? Evergreen Solar? These are just FIVE of the nearly ONE HUNDRED friends of the dem/Socialists who received big money grants from the Obama administration who, after cashing that big government paycheck, simply folded.

Well, not really Fiskars. They cashed the check, then they sold out to a Chinese company last week…so that load of our tax money went to not only Obama’s friends, but also to the Chinese.

:bigyikes:

“Money must serve, not rule.” Pope Francis

 

[nmgauss]

:bigyikes:

“Money must serve, not rule.” Pope Francis

Why work for a living when you can simply LOVE and God will support you.

 

[holyreyes]

There is no travesty is the fact that there are rich and poor. That is reality.
The real travesty is a government created “DEPENDANCE CLASS” of poor who believe that they can only survive by electing liberal politicians who will keep them dependent.

I never heard of such a thing. Regardless of who they vote and what they believe, the “dependance class” of poor must be elevated from poverty by your political party if they are truly Christian.

If it were not for the Free Market the natural resources of the Earth would not be available to as many people as they are.

:bigyikes:
The natural resources of the Earth is ALWAYS available to as many people even without free market…

That is true. There has not been a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire Free Market since the 1890’s. If there was, the world would be a better place. Peace, justice and a standard of living beyond comprehension.

Maybe you should elaborate but my response to that is :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes: As long as money is involved, the world will never ever be a better place. There wouldn’t be any peace, justice and standard of living beyond comprehension. The world would be doomed!

 

[holyreyes]

Why work for a living when you can simply LOVE and God will support you.

Well, maybe you should try. I should have read your religion before responding to you.

 

[epan]

I never heard of such a thing. Regardless of who they vote and what they believe, the “dependance class” of poor must be elevated from poverty by your political party if they are truly Christian.

:bigyikes:
The natural resources of the Earth is ALWAYS available to as many people even without free market…

Maybe you should elaborate but my response to that is :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes: As long as money is involved, the world will never ever be a better place. There wouldn’t be any peace, justice and standard of living beyond comprehension. The world would be doomed!

Socialism is practiced successfully in villages, in some parts of the world. The formal theories grew as a reaction to the abuses of capitalism. As is well known, the 1890’s showed capitalism’s ugliest face, and the reform movements beginning with teddy Roosevelt, and progressing through FDR, and culminating with LBJ were the reaction against the injustice of unbridled capitalism. Once balance was achieved, an unprecedented era of prosperity for the middle class ensued.

Then Reagan embarked on his campaign to enrich a minority at the expense of the middle class, and here we are today as the trend has continued as a reaction to the trends started by teddy Roosevelt.

Don’t forget the role of technology. As the information technologies have displaced the previous moderately paid jobs of the middle class, that diverted income is now flowing to the owners of the new technologies. When factories automate or outsource, the price of goods does not drop. Instead, the former wages of the workers simply go into the pockets of the owners. We are now in another “guided age” similar to the 1890’s. Unfortunately for all of us, including the rich, mr Obama has neither the vision, nor the sense of history, nor the courage, nor the moral bearings of Roosevelt. Whether the current technological revolution results in reasoned and peaceful reform to our economic system, or whether it will defrade into horrific violent oppression and revolution is still unknown.

One thing is certain, a great leader must emerge, if the peaceful and orderly transition is to be realized. Is Francis that leader?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Socialism is practiced successfully in villages, in some parts of the world. The formal theories grew as a reaction to the abuses of capitalism. As is well known, the 1890’s showed capitalism’s ugliest face, and the reform movements beginning with teddy Roosevelt, and progressing through FDR, and culminating with LBJ were the reaction against the injustice of unbridled capitalism. Once balance was achieved, an unprecedented era of prosperity for the middle class ensued.

Do you remember the 70’s? Do you remember Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech? That was the last time we had a complete leftist for a president, and he utterly trashed our economy.

Then Reagan embarked on his campaign to enrich a minority at the expense of the middle class, and here we are today as the trend has continued as a reaction to the trends started by teddy Roosevelt.

Can you tell me a single thing, ONE single thing, that Reagan did to “enrich a minority at the expense of the middle class”?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

:bigyikes:

I will repeat it. THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO MALNOURISHMENT IN AMERICA DUE TO POVERTY (unless it is a mental health, medical, or legal issue)

I will challenge you to find ONE example of a person who is malnourished in America. Don’t give me government statistics saying xx% of American children are “at risk of homelessness and malnourishment”. Try to find an actual person in America who IS malnourished.

Once you have exhausted your vain search, read that report I linked to learn about what poverty actually looks like in America. Plenty of food, refrigerator, freezer, television, game systems, air conditioning, etc.

THEN go to somewhere like Haiti, or Dominican Republic, or Cuba. I’ve been there and seen what poverty really is. I’ve seen what the poor there will do, the challenges they will overcome, just to come to America so that they can have a chance to be as wealthy as our poorest. THAT is poverty, and THERE you will find malnourishment.

Or, you can keep giving me “eek eyes” if that keeps you safely in your liberal shell.

 

[epan]

Do you remember the 70’s? Do you remember Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech? That was the last time we had a complete leftist for a president, and he utterly trashed our economy.

Can you tell me a single thing, ONE single thing, that Reagan did to “enrich a minority at the expense of the middle class”?

No, the Carter presidency preceded by birth. So, I don’t remember it. In response, I would point out that we have had good and bad presidents of varying ideologies. If you want to bring up Carter as an indictment of moderate left democracy, then would you also agree that Hoover was a clear indictment of all things on the right? The lens of history tends to shine a unfavorable light on more conservatives than it does on liberals. We could catalogue them one by one. But the general pattern is that those who favor the rich tend to ignore social welfare and social justice, and also tend toward corruption by bribery and lobbyists. For those reasons, there is a tendency to hold conservatives in low regard historically. Of course, there are exceptions to this generalization.

Yes, of course I can. Reagan revived the now popular notion among the rich that their tax burden is unfair. From the early 20th century until Reagan, it was accepted that the very rich have a very high marginal rate on income well above anything necessary to live luxuriously. The top marginal rate was 90% for individuals. Today the top marginal rate is less than 40%. On the business side, corporations paid approximately $1.50 for every $1.00 paid in taxes by individuals. Today, the ratio is about $0.35 to $1.00, respectively.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

No, the Carter presidency preceded by birth. So, I don’t remember it. In response, I would point out that we have had good and bad presidents of varying ideologies. If you want to bring up Carter as an indictment of moderate left democracy, then would you also agree that Hoover was a clear indictment of all things on the right? The lens of history tends to shine a unfavorable light on more conservatives than it does on liberals. We could catalogue them one by one. But the general pattern is that those who favor the rich tend to ignore social welfare and social justice, and also tend toward corruption by bribery and lobbyists. For those reasons, there is a tendency to hold conservatives in low regard historically. Of course, there are exceptions to this generalization.

Yes, we agree on Hoover. I disagree on the corruption though…I believe this perception is due to the incredible media bias which has allowed the Democratic party to be able to get away with ANYTHING. This has turned a once proud and honorable party into what it is today.

Yes, of course I can. Reagan revived the now popular notion among the rich that their tax burden is unfair. From the early 20th century until Reagan, it was accepted that the very rich have a very high marginal rate on income well above anything necessary to live luxuriously. The top marginal rate was 90% for individuals. Today the top marginal rate is less than 40%. On the business side, corporations paid approximately $1.50 for every $1.00 paid in taxes by individuals. Today, the ratio is about $0.35 to $1.00, respectively.

I disagree with this hurting the middle class. That 90% top tax rate simply pushed the wealthy into various tax shelters. The Laffer curve is real despite socialist propaganda. Furthermore, if you simply look at how the middle class lived in 1981, and how they lived in 1989, you will see a huge improvement in general American lifestyle.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Yes, we agree on Hoover. I disagree on the corruption though…I believe this perception is due to the incredible media bias which has allowed the Democratic party to be able to get away with ANYTHING. This has turned a once proud and honorable party into what it is today.

Just a quick example of this. Another Democratic state senator being charged with corruption. Fox news has this on page 1 of their national news site: foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/calif-senator-faces-24-corruption-charges/?intcmp=latestnews This is a relatively long article detailing the charges and allegations, with multiple quotes from both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. It also lays out a brief description of senator Calderon’s side of the story. It’s a well written and balanced article.

ABC News at least has done a story on it, but you have to do a search to find it. Oh, and it is a whopping FIVE SENTENCES LONG story.

NBC and CBS national news hasn’t covered it all. Nada, nothing, zilch. They haven’t covered it at all.

Compare this with all the hype about Chris Christie’s ALLEGEDLY being aware of a politically motivated bridge closing.

 

[nmgauss]

Just a quick example of this. Another Democratic state senator being charged with corruption. Fox news has this on page 1 of their national news site: foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/calif-senator-faces-24-corruption-charges/?intcmp=latestnews This is a relatively long article detailing the charges and allegations, with multiple quotes from both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. It also lays out a brief description of senator Calderon’s side of the story. It’s a well written and balanced article.

ABC News at least has done a story on it, but you have to do a search to find it. Oh, and it is a whopping FIVE SENTENCES LONG story.

NBC and CBS national news hasn’t covered it all. Nada, nothing, zilch. They haven’t covered it at all.

Compare this with all the hype about Chris Christie’s ALLEGEDLY being aware of a politically motivated bridge closing.

You know this, but most of us out in the boonies would like to know. Can you elaborate?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You know this, but most of us out in the boonies would like to know. Can you elaborate?

Elaborate on what?

 

[nmgauss]

In response, I would point out that we have had good and bad presidents of varying ideologies. If you want to bring up Carter as an indictment of moderate left democracy, then would you also agree that Hoover was a clear indictment of all things on the right? The lens of history tends to shine a unfavorable light on more conservatives than it does on liberals. We could catalogue them one by one. But the general pattern is that those who favor the rich tend to ignore social welfare and social justice, and also tend toward corruption by bribery and lobbyists. For those reasons, there is a tendency to hold conservatives in low regard historically. Of course, there are exceptions to this generalization.

On the business side, corporations paid approximately $1.50 for every $1.00 paid in taxes by individuals. Today, the ratio is about $0.35 to $1.00, respectively.

On Hoover, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

“Hoover, a globally experienced engineer, believed strongly in the Efficiency Movement, which held that the government and the economy were riddled with inefficiency and waste, and could be improved by experts who could identify the problems and solve them. He also believed in the importance of volunteerism and of the role of individuals in society and the economy. Hoover, who had made a small fortune in mining, was the first of two Presidents to redistribute their salary (President Kennedy was the other; he donated all his paychecks to charity).[2] When the Wall Street Crash of 1929 struck less than eight months after he took office, Hoover tried to combat the ensuing Great Depression with government enforced efforts, public works projects such as the Hoover Dam, tariffs such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, an increase in the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%, and increases in corporate taxes.[3] These initiatives did not produce economic recovery during his term, but served as the groundwork for various policies incorporated in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal”

As to corporate taxes, many people are unaware that corporations are owned by many individuals who buy shares of the corporations stock. One can buy a share of corporate stock for only a few dollars. Income of the corporation, as a whole, is taxed and then the income that each individual receives from the corporation is also taxed. This amounts to double taxation. How is that fair?