ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Socialism

Report this
Created by: DUKAT!!!!

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 6:53 am

Gold and silver are no more stable than the dollar.  Only worth what they are because people say that it worth that.  There is a reason we left the gold standard and a reason going back wil be a terrible idea.


Gold and silver are stable commodities. They only appear to fluctuate, because they are measured in a dollar standard. However, it is the dollar itself that fluctuates, as evidenced by price variation, particularly inflation. It is analygous to the fallacy of an earth centric universe. From earth (the dollar), which is treated as the stationary or standard object by which everything else is measured, the sun (gold) appears to be revolving around the earth. But what happens when the stationary object is not so stationary or fails to be the standard as conventionally believed? 


Also, the precious metal markets are intentionally manipulated to favor the dollar so that people don't lose faith in it. Manipulation of the precious metals market is achieved by fractional reserve banking. Banks, like JP Morgan,  issue far more receipts for gold and silver than will ever be redeemable. This scam artificially drives the price of gold and silver down because the precious metals appear to be in abundance. But once people discover the scam, that multiple claims exist for the same ounce of gold/silver, they will rush to redeem their receipts before their competitors, who have an equal claim. The rush will destroy the dollar, drive up the price of gold and silver, and reflect the true value of precious metals in the market.


We left the gold standard because of a monetary crisis created by the Federal Reserve, which inflated the money supply to the point where other countries lost faith in the dollar. Foreign countries wanted to exchange those dollars for gold. The U.S. didn't have enough gold to redeem those dollars as promised, so it abandoned the gold standard to perpetuate big debt & theft, big government, and kick the can of fiscal irresponsibility down the road.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 7:19 am

I don't know how anyone could take this poll seriously. It's very leading. If one answer is "Yes, everyone should be a socialist," then the other choice should be "Yes, everyone should be a capitalist." From the outset, it makes it perfectly clear that it isn't interested in the truth.


You even have a third choice which, if it serves any purpose, we might guess by  the decided bias here, it's probably to take some potential votes away from socialism.


Which is why it's all the more hilarious that capitalism is still losing here!


Should I even bother to address it? Okay, here is why people are laughing at you and selecting socialism anyway:


First, you've got this hazy notion that "socialism" is BIG GOVERNMENT, and of course, that's an idea which comes straight from Republican Party headquarters, the place where all your ideas seem to come from.


If you took a political science or sociology class, your head wouldn't be so easy to plant suggestions in like that. 


Some forms of leftism make conservatism look like BIG GOVERNMENT. For example, anarcho-syndicalism, in which there is no government, and no money, just trade unions. In a system without money, there is no hierarchy whatsoever. Moreover, the Democrats you obvisouly refer to are not leftists, if they ever truly were. They are mainly centrist to center-right lately, albeit left on the American political spectrum in relation to the Republicans.


Also, you'reoperating under a false premise in thinking capitalism means the government is off your back. Capitalism has often simply meant that the forces which most appropriately can be said to govern over you are moved from public control to private control where they are therefore unreachable and you have no ability to get them off your back, whereas you would have if they had been kept public.


And you need to clarify or to demonstrate some basic understanding of what capitalism and socialism are. For example, you can't say if capitalism has even one social program, then it's socialism. Capitalism has never been without social programs. Indeed, they are a part of it. It's really a question of what type of economy a place has.


Those are the sorts of things you would have to acknowledge if you were interested in the truth. As a side note, truth is important to know, because making good decisions requires it.


Now, what we hear sometimes nowadays is "post-capitalism" or "post-socialist." Anarcho-syndicalism, which I mentioned earlier, is one form of "post-socialism." Although with anarcho-syndicalism, there is no socialist phase, so we aren't talking capital S socialism, when we say "post-socialism." There are other forms, such as social democracy, like what is found in Scandanavia. Places like Norway and Denmark have very high social mobility, some of the highest rates of overall happiness, some of the freeest presses, some of the highest levels of freedom of speech, and they are some of the greenest countries. They do better than the United States in many areas, including more fair justice systems. And it only follows that you would call them socialist. Meanwhile, communists derride them for their capitalist economies. You need to take such things into account.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 8:26 am

^Socialism disposes of private property in favor of common ownership and democratic rule. Any system that dispenses with private property is relatively quick to abuse individual liberties. Also, even if government is theoretically small under Socialism, it is human nature to attempt the expansion of the occupational field in which one is involved. Thus, politicians will attempt to grow even the smallest government, an effort made considerably easy by the lack of safeguards, such as private property. Consider how the the United States Government, even with the safeguard of a Constitution, has grown to ignore its own supreme laws.  

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 8:50 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 17 2013, 3:36 am

>"Why" is not the biggest question. That question is answered easily; Because the Constitution says so. It is our right.

>The question is "how." And that, thanks to beaurocracy (much of it corporately inspired) is a difficult question to answer.

>
But WHY does the Constitution say it?  We can take any item in the US Constitution and if we don't understand the why, it's is easily perversed and redefined.  Why do you think that we have the unConstitutional government we now have?


It's because the government just plain doesn't care about the Constitution or why it was created - it wants to do thing the way it wants because it wants more power over the citizens.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 8:55 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 17 2013, 3:39 am

>You said that your parents were on welfare. No one forced them, either. They chose that.
But Why did they choose that?  They decided to do that because they got money for "free" without working.  They chose to take the path of stealing money from others via government force.  Government forces us to pay others that are on welfare.


 


Welfare

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 9:00 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 17 2013, 3:39 am

>And your claim that "the role of the US military is defense, not forcing others to subjugate themselves to the USA" is I'm sorry to say, but laughable at best. If it were true, we would not have American military forces stationed in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia. Yet we do.
And you definitely have a point, but your stretching my point out quite a bit.  How many countries have we gone out and conquered and just brought into the Union (USA)?  Did we do that to Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, etc?  (I don't think we have a base in Lybia.)


Now... do I agree that we shouldn't have military bases all over the world?  Absolutely - we agree there.  Really, why do we need bases everywhere?  This has more to do with the US military fulfilling the "policeman of the world" role than subjugatng countries to the USA.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 9:03 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 17 2013, 3:47 am

>However, it seems that your argument is, basically, that "more benefits means more people working for longer periods of time." Wouldn't such people, as a result, be paying more taxes (in the long run), effectively providing for more benefits?
Exactly right - but it's other people that are paying the taxes.  This is why the entitlement programs has grown so much and now taken over more than half of the federal budget and has no end in sight as to how much it will grow as more and more people are demanding more and more redistribution of weath because it's "free" money.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 9:14 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 17 2013, 3:47 am

>Also, that pertains primarily to your own statements and the second graph. Im not sure I see the point of the first.

>
The first chart talks about unemployment rising as benefits pay out more.  Why get a job when I get more in unemployment?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 9:22 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 17 2013, 6:53 am

>

>Gold and silver are no more stable than the dollar.  Only worth what they are because people say that it worth that.  There is a reason we left the gold standard and a reason going back wil be a terrible idea.

>Gold and silver are stable commodities. They only appear to fluctuate, because they are measured in a dollar standard. However, it is the dollar itself that fluctuates, as evidenced by price variation, particularly inflation. It is analygous to the fallacy of an earth centric universe. From earth (the dollar), which is treated as the stationary or standard object by which everything else is measured, the sun (gold) appears to be revolving around the earth. But what happens when the stationary object is not so stationary or fails to be the standard as conventionally believed? 

>Also, the precious metal markets are intentionally manipulated to favor the dollar so that people don't lose faith in it. Manipulation of the precious metals market is achieved by fractional reserve banking. Banks, like JP Morgan,  issue far more receipts for gold and silver than will ever be redeemable. This scam artificially drives the price of gold and silver down because the precious metals appear to be in abundance. But once people discover the scam, that multiple claims exist for the same ounce of gold/silver, they will rush to redeem their receipts before their competitors, who have an equal claim. The rush will destroy the dollar, drive up the price of gold and silver, and reflect the true value of precious metals in the market.

>We left the gold standard because of a monetary crisis created by the Federal Reserve, which inflated the money supply to the point where other countries lost faith in the dollar. Foreign countries wanted to exchange those dollars for gold. The U.S. didn't have enough gold to redeem those dollars as promised, so it abandoned the gold standard to perpetuate big debt & theft, big government, and kick the can of fiscal irresponsibility down the road.

>
I'm going to add a couple of points here that may help:


1) If we took a gold piece in the early 1900's, we could go out and buy a really nice suit with it.  If we take that same goldpiece right now, we could go out and make a very similar purchase.  It's only that the fiat amount (dollars) would have changed.


2) This also explains why Obama wanted to coin a TRILLION dollar coin - even though the USA doesn't have anything to back it up with... he just says it's work a trillion dollars and everyone believes it.  This fallacy (which thankfully didn't get approval by Congress) shows how idiotic fiat is....  if he could coin a trillion dollar coin without backing, what about 1000 times more or a million times more?

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 388

Report this Feb. 24 2013, 2:59 pm

Yes, let's go back to the gold standard and let billions of people die who are only alive today because we all agree the Monopoly money the government prints has more value.


That's so much better than abandoning money and capitalism altogether...


DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 201

Report this Feb. 26 2013, 5:40 am

Socialism has never worked anywhere it has been tried.


It will fail in the US as well.


"Socialism is fine until you run out of other peoples money"


Never more true than today.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

humanityresurrected

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 196

Report this Feb. 26 2013, 5:56 am

 


"Eventually, somebody came up with the slogan, “8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure, 8 hours of sleep” to divide the 24-hour day into what was considered a fair allocation of a human’s time. It wasn’t a slogan that was immediately accepted. People had to fight to put this standard in place. People demonstrated, and fought with police, and were killed. They were called communists (in fairness, some of them were), and traitors, and many of them got a lot worse than pepper spray at the hands of police and private security." 


John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:



..someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'




Edit:


When will we live in our time, and "serve God's purpose in his own generation" Acts 13:36 


Is ther room for improvement?




edit


I keep thinking of the danger of a single story.


http://dotsub.com/view/63ef5d28-6607-4fec-b906-aaae6cff7dbe/viewTranscript/eng


Who's job is it to end poverty? Poverty refers to being unable to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Feb. 26 2013, 3:26 pm

Quote: DS9_FOREVER! @ Feb. 26 2013, 5:40 am

>

>Socialism has never worked anywhere it has been tried.

>It will fail in the US as well.

>"Socialism is fine until you run out of other peoples money"

>Never more true than today.

>


unbridled capitalism doesn't work.  Unless you think 9 year old working in coalmines and factories is acceptable. 


but a mixture of socialism and capitalism works really well in most of the western world. 


 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

humanityresurrected

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 196

Report this Feb. 26 2013, 5:57 pm

 wissa stated:


"unbridled capitalism doesn't work.  Unless you think 9 year old working in coalmines and factories is acceptable."




i would just like to note, that machines do that kind of work. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Feb. 26 2013, 6:31 pm

Quote: wissa @ Feb. 26 2013, 3:26 pm

> Unless you think 9 year old working in coalmines and factories is acceptable.

>
So no kid should work?  There's a difference between a working a job and being a slave.


 


And how do you think I was able to purchase my first car?  It wasn't because my parents bought it...


 


And don't forget, that time working gave me experience and a work ethic.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum