Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

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'.

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?

It should be okay. It is every person's right to be lazy. That person however shouldn't complain about being poor if that's the case. His choice, his responsibility.

@ Tiolucas: Because working with your hands is the only 'real work', or what are you implying here? I'm studying so that I don't have to work with my hands. Does that mean I'm lazy? I don't think so.

that is your error.
Remember that the same argument was used for communism.
It is impossible that it happens.

Why would it be impossible to install a capitalist system?

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.

Our socialist 'capitalism' / corporatism has nothing to do with real capitalism. It isn't - unlike the dictatorship of the proletariat before communism - a phase before capitalism. It is a different system. They way our (financial) system works wasn't implemented by people who stand for capitalism.
(edited)

How are you robbed by a banker, or employer? Tell me, cause I'm very interesting.

Almost all examples a peoples, who you gave, are a workers who produced money.

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).

You are talking about taxes? Taxes are a symbol of socialism. In capitalism there were no taxes, or are very, very low.

You don' have take a credit in bank - it's your choise

In capitalism, when prices are high, you can create your own company and sell the same things at lower prices. In socialism, there were no possibilities to this (taxes, restrictions, bureaucracy, etc.).

And more over...

Why would it be impossible to install a capitalist system?

because it doesn't work.
It became rapidly a failure or something else.
People with power and money corrupt the principles of your idea and change rules to gain more for theirselves. A system without regolation of interest can't have any weapon against it.

Our socialist 'capitalism' / corporatism has nothing to do with real capitalism. It isn't - unlike the dictatorship of the proletariat before communism - a phase before capitalism. It is a different system. They way our (financial) system works wasn't implemented by people who stand for capitalism.
(modificato)

this has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Capitalism as you believe in doesn't exist because it is impossible.

But the capitalism ideology (and it symbol word "freedom") is making damages because it tell the people to believe in something that bring them only poverty, enslavement and suffering. And this ideology hides his negative sides with words everybody likes, thanks to the work of an enormous propaganda machine that keep this "brand" running.
Exaclty as communism, where people believed to build a better world but reality was different.

And there will never be something like what you call capitalism. Is even stupid to think about it.
Try to imagine the richer that doesn't use money and power to enslave people for greed, why do they would respect your "freedom" idea? If they can they'll do. and you can't avoid it.
(edited)

About the gun discussion:

documentary gun fight

A good docu to watch. Don't know which link will work as I can't check it with my phone.
(edited)

You still don't get it. The greed within the financial markets was (and is) due .... politics and financial institutions.

Please ... if I remember correctly your study is about business and/or economics. Don't write these things as you know better. It's much more complicated as a dumb cat+milk example. In Iceland the banks went bankrupt, no one knew what the (dutch) state could or would do. Now we can say they where helped, but that's pretty easy now we know:/
(edited)

Was also on Dutch Television yesterday, the 2nd time I have seen it. :)

Please ... if I remember correctly your study is about business and/or economics.

You remembered well. Finished my Bachelor's last year. Doing my Master's right now. Why?

Don't write these things as you know better.

It's not because you don't like it that it's not correct. The government created this crisis in the first place. And look at what for instance Milton Friedman said about central intervention (government or central bank) working procyclical instead of countercyclical.

It's much more complicated as a dumb cat+milk example.

Of course it is. Economic "technology" (splitting and repacking financial products) played a major role too. But the cat and the milk was just an analogy. A correct one in my opinion.

In Iceland the banks went bankrupt, no one knew what the (dutch) state could or would do. Now we can say they where helped, but that's pretty easy now we know:/

What do you mean?

I'm afraid you don't realise how many people are really lazy ^^

It's not because you don't like it that it's not correct. The government created this crisis in the first place. And look at what for instance Milton Friedman said about central intervention (government or central bank) working procyclical instead of countercyclical.


the crisis is a private crisis that govs can't avoid to face (in reality is worst to lose a bank than to let it fail.. whatever Friedman says about it..)
the problem are the austherity politics that are procyclical, and are suicidal!
but this is a KEYNES lesson, not a Friedman one..

the other problem is the monetaristic ideology that belives still that production (offer) create demand. It's false, as it's easy to demonstrate with any overproduction crisis. This theory is making huge damages in the world.

the crisis is a private crisis that govs can't avoid to face (in reality is worst to lose a bank than to let it fail.. whatever Friedman says about it..)

Letting our big banks fail would indeed be a huge mistake (huge damage to our economy). But still, the crisis was caused because of the government intervention that has been going on for years and years (with government intervention deepening the crises and boosting the economy even more when it got overheated because quite simply, government intervention (including central banks) works too slow). I'm not going to repeat once again why.

but this is a KEYNES lesson, not a Friedman one..

Few people who talk about Keynes actually know what he said. If he saw what people are making of his theories, he'd be rolling over in his grave.

Letting our big banks fail would indeed be a huge mistake (huge damage to our economy). But still, the crisis was caused because of the government intervention that has been going on for years and years (with government intervention deepening the crises and boosting the economy even more when it got overheated because quite simply, government intervention (including central banks) works too slow). I'm not going to repeat once again why.

I strongly disagree,
the crisis were producted by private indebitation, euro mistakes, commercial wars inside UE.
Gov intervention was the same as always and everywhere.

We had crisis because the expansion of northern countries exportations (germany and satellites), were substained by indebitation (private indebitation) of southern countries. WE had low rate for lending money in all UE, whatever inflaction there was in that country. And we had the same coin for every country..

When a little shock comed to markets, privates started to have problem in repay debts, banks started to have liquidity problems, asked public help and the crisis went from private to public...
Having depression and cash problems, southern state started (thanks UE!!!) to make austherity politics (cut public expenditure, more taxation).
But this depressed more economy (as you were writing procyclical politics..)
When people in southern states got in real big job/income crisis, OBVIOUSLY, northern countries start to have problems to continue to sell them products, and the crisis is infecting them too.

there are 2 solutions:
-Germany (north countries) re-pays back to south.
-euro break

Merkel's UE choosed the first one. They are trying to make us believe they are helping us, that's not true, they are enslaving us, and waiting next crisis to take us another quote of self determination, labour rights, welfare etc.


Few people who talk about Keynes actually know what he said. If he saw what people are making of his theories, he'd be rolling over in his grave.

Yes,
the same as for Friedman..

When a little shock comed to markets, privates started to have problem in repay debts, banks started to have liquidity problems, asked public help and the crisis went from private to public...

You're still don't get what I'm saying. The fact that they took those risks (high debts) was because they knew that when everything would go wrong, the government would save their asses. If they knew the government wasn't going to save them, they'd have been more conservative in taking risks.

When people in southern states got in real big job/income crisis, OBVIOUSLY, northern countries start to have problems to continue to sell them products, and the crisis is infecting them too.

That's just not true. Exporting hasn't dropped dramatically in Northern Europe (in the traditional exporting countries like Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, ...). The problem we have is that our banks owned too many financial products of southern countries.

Germany (north countries) re-pays back to south.

Repay? Repay? Pay you mean.

the same as for Friedman..

No. Friedman was a monetarist and a pro-free market economist, and he was very clear about that.

I am not economist but I do not understand one thing. Why governments have debts in first place? Wouldnt be best have profits to have some reservoir for crisis and do not just paying interests?

You're still don't get what I'm saying. The fact that they took those risks (high debts) was because they knew that when everything would go wrong, the government would save their asses. If they knew the government wasn't going to save them, they'd have been more conservative in taking risks.

people take debts because someone give it them-
banks offer loan because they take money for cheap and loan it for good interest.

they both make their interest. none of them care about failure. there's no difference at all if they'll be saved or not.

That's just not true. Exporting hasn't dropped dramatically in Northern Europe (in the traditional exporting countries like Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, ...). The problem we have is that our banks owned too many financial products of southern countries.

This is false.
your bank are safe until Draghi says "UE pays for all", you are not seeing the economic crisis is coming to "north".

Repay? Repay? Pay you mean.

re-pay, when you take something with cheat (not respecting threaty you accepted)
you re pay back.

and Friedman was smarter than his henchmen..