Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
And why public bailouts? Because without regulation greed takes over in capitalism, but our lifesavings and jobs had to be protected. And yes, we still pay the price for their greed as money borrowed from the state to save these companies has to be paid back, and ofcourse we do that, not the ones who are responsible.
You still don't get it. The greed within the financial markets was (and is) due to the government backing them up. Because they knew they are 'too big to fail' and the government would save their asses when everything went wrong. It's like putting milk in front of a cat and then blaming the cat for drinking it. We have to get rid of the interdependence between politics and financial institutions.
You still don't get it. The greed within the financial markets was (and is) due to the government backing them up. Because they knew they are 'too big to fail' and the government would save their asses when everything went wrong. It's like putting milk in front of a cat and then blaming the cat for drinking it. We have to get rid of the interdependence between politics and financial institutions.
I am aware of that. That's why it's ridiculous to blame capitalism for this crisis. We don't have capitalism. We have socialist capitalism. Blame that for this crisis.
esactly as for communism.
"we don't had real communism. We had regime communism"
Ok, for me your criminal ideology and its uthopistic mechanisms had made enough damages.
Time to start talking about something that didn't kill/enslave people.
esactly as for communism.
"we don't had real communism. We had regime communism"
Ok, for me your criminal ideology and its uthopistic mechanisms had made enough damages.
Time to start talking about something that didn't kill/enslave people.
We have to get rid of the interdependence between politics and financial institutions.
but this is still putting milk in front of a cat and then blaming the cat for drinking it.
how to make that it doesn't happens???
but this is still putting milk in front of a cat and then blaming the cat for drinking it.
how to make that it doesn't happens???
esactly as for communism.
"we don't had real communism. We had regime communism"
The fact is that due to the inner core of communism (everyone must agree with the system), real communism was impossible and an eternal dictatorship of the proletariat was always going to be the case.
The inner core of classical liberal capitalism is different (everyone must be free) and reachable.
Ok, for me your criminal ideology and its uthopistic mechanisms had made enough damages.
Time to start talking about something that didn't kill/enslave people.
So you're saying my ideology cannot be put into practice, but however, it has done a lot of damage. Which one is it now? 1) It has existed and it has made a lot of damage or 2) It never existed and therefore, it can't have done a lot of damage. Chose.
(edited)
"we don't had real communism. We had regime communism"
The fact is that due to the inner core of communism (everyone must agree with the system), real communism was impossible and an eternal dictatorship of the proletariat was always going to be the case.
The inner core of classical liberal capitalism is different (everyone must be free) and reachable.
Ok, for me your criminal ideology and its uthopistic mechanisms had made enough damages.
Time to start talking about something that didn't kill/enslave people.
So you're saying my ideology cannot be put into practice, but however, it has done a lot of damage. Which one is it now? 1) It has existed and it has made a lot of damage or 2) It never existed and therefore, it can't have done a lot of damage. Chose.
(edited)
;-)
The aim of communism is : "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
The aim of communism is : "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
The fact is that due to the inner core of communism (everyone must agree with the system), real communism was impossible and an eternal dictatorship of the proletariat was always going to be the case.
The inner core of classical liberal capitalism is different (everyone must be free) and reachable.
that is your error.
Remember that the same argument was used for communism.
It is impossible that it happens.
So you're saying my ideology cannot be put into practice, but however, it has done a lot of damage. Which one is it now? 1) It has existed and it has made a lot of damage or 2) It never existed and therefore, it can't have done a lot of damage. Chose.
you ideology exist. your capitalistic system doesn't (as you imagine it).
There's difference between ad idea and its real application.
your ideology (read it: ideology) is making damages.
The same for communism. The ideology talks about something that is impossible in reality. So this ideology made huge damages.
The aim of communism is : "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
well no (at least not only it)
well no (at least not only it)
The final aim is a stateless society. Which is impossible. Classical liberal capitalism doesn't aim for a stateless society.
Yes true sorry. It goes de facto, this why i forgot to mention it... As communism would developp, as state will no need to exist.
What do you guys think about tax system in France? For example Gerard Depardieu is moving to Belgium, because if you make 1million a year, then 75% goes for taxes. This is a robbery in a daylight imo.
Of course, that's a robbery. But this is problem Frenchmen, not mine. They elected a thief for a president, so this thief make a robbery as he said.
@ Stef
As El pupe said, the main issue is how is redistributed the tax incomes to all society.
This money will go to muslims, who still will be sit in their asses and have there any job.
This is socialism. Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy
Of course, that's a robbery. But this is problem Frenchmen, not mine. They elected a thief for a president, so this thief make a robbery as he said.
@ Stef
As El pupe said, the main issue is how is redistributed the tax incomes to all society.
This money will go to muslims, who still will be sit in their asses and have there any job.
This is socialism. Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy
This money will go to muslims, who still will be sit in their asses and have there any job.
This is socialism. Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy
a very racist and religious fundamentalist speech.
This is socialism. Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy
a very racist and religious fundamentalist speech.
This is socialism. Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy
You are very wrong, man. I wonder why you could think of yourself as 'rational and smart', but I guess that in any case it is a problem of yours alone. In the other hand, have you had ever got any minimum knowledge of today's World's reality?
What you say is the definition of the actual Capitalism:
Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy (that is, by the banker, the landowner, the speculator shareholder, the corporative manager, the employer, the military, the services companies, the sales intermediaries, the national poliiticial, the regional politician, the local politician... and, extensively, by all their families, friends, associates and acquitances, of course). So, maybe an "s" is missing in your last word.
In socialism, you always can opt by being the lazy one (or at least, to work the minimum acceptable). In capitalism, with that option you would have a very hard time, as you would become unemployed (as mortgages, taxes, the cost of overpriced items, food, heath and other services, etc, do not become free or forgotten, yet you lose your job).
And, honestly, I would prefer thousand times to be robbed by another worker, be him a lazy or whatever, than by a bunch of parasites who have never known what working hard (or, simply, working) is.
You are very wrong, man. I wonder why you could think of yourself as 'rational and smart', but I guess that in any case it is a problem of yours alone. In the other hand, have you had ever got any minimum knowledge of today's World's reality?
What you say is the definition of the actual Capitalism:
Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy (that is, by the banker, the landowner, the speculator shareholder, the corporative manager, the employer, the military, the services companies, the sales intermediaries, the national poliiticial, the regional politician, the local politician... and, extensively, by all their families, friends, associates and acquitances, of course). So, maybe an "s" is missing in your last word.
In socialism, you always can opt by being the lazy one (or at least, to work the minimum acceptable). In capitalism, with that option you would have a very hard time, as you would become unemployed (as mortgages, taxes, the cost of overpriced items, food, heath and other services, etc, do not become free or forgotten, yet you lose your job).
And, honestly, I would prefer thousand times to be robbed by another worker, be him a lazy or whatever, than by a bunch of parasites who have never known what working hard (or, simply, working) is.
Every hard working man is then robbed by the stinking lazy (that is, by the banker, the landowner, the speculator shareholder, the corporative manager, the employer, the military, the services companies, the sales intermediaries, the national poliiticial, the regional politician, the local politician... and, extensively, by all their families, friends, associates and acquitances, of course). So, maybe an "s" is missing in your last word.
That's just so wrong. Those people are not (necessarily) lazy. They are the ones who optimally used their qualities, who took a risk,... The hard working man appreciated those qualities and rewarded them (by putting money on the bank, or by electing the politician). Or, shareholders were rewarded for taking risks. Lots of those 'lazy people' were hard working men earlier in their lives, but they earned enough to become 'lazy'.
Tell me: in which world is it ok to leave open the option of lazyness (your words, not mine) and support that choice of life? Apparently, in your eyes, this is the preferrable option over 'people with the right qualities might become wealthy'.
That's just so wrong. Those people are not (necessarily) lazy. They are the ones who optimally used their qualities, who took a risk,... The hard working man appreciated those qualities and rewarded them (by putting money on the bank, or by electing the politician). Or, shareholders were rewarded for taking risks. Lots of those 'lazy people' were hard working men earlier in their lives, but they earned enough to become 'lazy'.
Tell me: in which world is it ok to leave open the option of lazyness (your words, not mine) and support that choice of life? Apparently, in your eyes, this is the preferrable option over 'people with the right qualities might become wealthy'.