KauaiOrca said:

Webster10 said:

Quote:

Capitalist countries are swallowing up the world, and they've been impoverishing Africa for what, a century now? Stealing their natural resources, and leaving them to starve.

---

The socialist European countries are the countries that have done the worst to Africa. But no, as long as your purpose is to blame capitalism, facts can gladly be thrown out of the window.

---

Virtually ALL Western nations, including the USA are part socialist and part capitalist.  There are no pure socialist nations in the Western world. 

It is the joining together of the military and for profit corporations to exploit resources wherever they can be found, but hopefully in undeveloped nations that has created a cycle of poverty in resource rich nations (Africa, for example).  The profits of these efforts are used to reward the political class that distorts the truth about what is really happening.

There is enough wealth, resources, information and technological know-how to turn our earth into a true utopia but the wealth class doesn't want this.  Instead, they want a massive servant class to provide for them as they pursue a god-like existence.

---

Stonehenge said:

KO, we are not paying interest to the fed, we are paying interest to the holders of us treasuries. That's where the interest is going. Treasuries bought with qe may seem to be interest free but it is just basically counterfeiting. It creates more cash in circulation chasing the same amount of goods which in time will lead to inflation.

---

Webster10 said:

Are the French more capitalistic than socialist? The Dutch? They are the ones who most royally fucked Africa. Whats your solution to the epidemic you'be described?

---

Stonehenge said:

Instead of asking me what I think, you might do better to show some evidence of what you are claiming.

---

KauaiOrca said:

Webster10 said:

Are the French more capitalistic than socialist? The Dutch? They are the ones who most royally fucked Africa. Whats your solution to the epidemic you'be described?

---

The ratio of capitalism to socialism in Europe and the US would be an interesting discussion, I guess, but not sure it would lead anywhere.  It is most often militant nationalism joining forces with for profit corporations that has led to the exploitation of resources from weaker nations.

The solution? 

1. Dramatic reduction of military spending across the globe.  More diplomatic solutions to the problems of borders.
2. Establishing some very teethy global human rights standards that are enforced rigorously.
3. Reform of the afterlife salvation cult religions that push an apocalyptic end game that creates a bizarre from of insanity in our species enabling a "chosen people" belief system that creates very fertile ground for militant nationalism to root and grow.
4. A massive global infrastructure program to improve education, transportation and delivery of basic needs like fresh water, food, and supplies for housing to ALL humans on this planet
5. Establishing a global education standard that leads to every human learning at least 2 languages fluently ... so that ALL humans can eventually communicate with one another directly. 
6. Total and complete transparency on all levels with legal entities including government, business, charities, etc.  Begin with absolute transparency in the area of who funds political parties and candidates, what deals are made and who benefits from contributions.
7. Tax systems that reward a fair voluntary distribution of profits between owners, executives and labor.  Giving Labor a stronger voice in the corporate boardroom similar to what we see in Germany.
8. Putting into place more direct democracy principles similar to what we see in Switzerland, a country that, IMHO, has the most refined system of democracy on that planet.

That should get things started.

---

The Ecstatic said:

KauaiOrca said:

Webster10 said:

Are the French more capitalistic than socialist? The Dutch? They are the ones who most royally fucked Africa. Whats your solution to the epidemic you'be described?

---

The ratio of capitalism to socialism in Europe and the US would be an interesting discussion, I guess, but not sure it would lead anywhere.  It is most often militant nationalism joining forces with for profit corporations that has led to the exploitation of resources from weaker nations.

The solution? 

1. Dramatic reduction of military spending across the globe.  More diplomatic solutions to the problems of borders.
2. Establishing some very teethy global human rights standards that are enforced rigorously.
3. Reform of the afterlife salvation cult religions that push an apocalyptic end game that creates a bizarre from of insanity in our species enabling a "chosen people" belief system that creates very fertile ground for militant nationalism to root and grow.
4. A massive global infrastructure program to improve education, transportation and delivery of basic needs like fresh water, food, and supplies for housing to ALL humans on this planet
5. Establishing a global education standard that leads to every human learning at least 2 languages fluently ... so that ALL humans can eventually communicate with one another directly. 
6. Total and complete transparency on all levels with legal entities including government, business, charities, etc.  Begin with absolute transparency in the area of who funds political parties and candidates, what deals are made and who benefits from contributions.
7. Tax systems that reward a fair voluntary distribution of profits between owners, executives and labor.  Giving Labor a stronger voice in the corporate boardroom similar to what we see in Germany.
8. Putting into place more direct democracy principles similar to what we see in Switzerland, a country that, IMHO, has the most refined system of democracy on that planet.

That should get things started.

---

I'm right there with you on runaway capitalism, but your first two points appear to be a contradiction.

Vastly reducing military spending seems like an impediment to enforcing strict human rights laws. What would be the mechanism of enforcing these laws? Vast economic sanction? I feel like that would only create factions of enemies.

---

Stonehenge said:

KO, I think you may be a tiny bit mixed up on one or two things.

>The interest that the US pays on its debt eventually finds its way into the revenues of the Federal Reserve Bank.  That's how it works.  The Federal Reserve provides virtually unlimited credit to the US Treasury and in return they get paid interest on that debt.

The usa debt is in the form of treasuries which are owed to individuals and foreign countries, not to the fed. Likewise, interest is owed to the owners of those treasuries, not to the fed. I'm not saying the fed does not make money, it does, but not in the way you are saying.

---

KauaiOrca said:

Stonehenge said:

KO, I think you may be a tiny bit mixed up on one or two things.

>The interest that the US pays on its debt eventually finds its way into the revenues of the Federal Reserve Bank.  That's how it works.  The Federal Reserve provides virtually unlimited credit to the US Treasury and in return they get paid interest on that debt.

The usa debt is in the form of treasuries which are owed to individuals and foreign countries, not to the fed. Likewise, interest is owed to the owners of those treasuries, not to the fed. I'm not saying the fed does not make money, it does, but not in the way you are saying.

---

You can slice and dice it any way you want but the bottom line is the more money the US Government borrows (through issuing more Treasuries) the more money the Federal Reserve Makes as a lender.  The system is complex, but more debt = more Federal Reserve Profits.  Right now, the Fed Balance sheet is holding over a trillion in Treasuries themselves as a result of QE.  To truly understand it all we'd have to bring in how member banks and fractional reserve banking works along with the fed lending window(s).  No need for that as I think we both know the score.  In simplest terms, the US rents its currency from the Federal Reserve Bank ... the more currency in circulation, the more rent is paid.

---

WAN said:

KauaiOrca said:

Stonehenge said:

KO, I think you may be a tiny bit mixed up on one or two things.

>The interest that the US pays on its debt eventually finds its way into the revenues of the Federal Reserve Bank.  That's how it works.  The Federal Reserve provides virtually unlimited credit to the US Treasury and in return they get paid interest on that debt.

The usa debt is in the form of treasuries which are owed to individuals and foreign countries, not to the fed. Likewise, interest is owed to the owners of those treasuries, not to the fed. I'm not saying the fed does not make money, it does, but not in the way you are saying.

---

You can slice and dice it any way you want but the bottom line is the more money the US Government borrows (through issuing more Treasuries) the more money the Federal Reserve Makes as a lender.  The system is complex, but more debt = more Federal Reserve Profits.  Right now, the Fed Balance sheet is holding over a trillion in Treasuries themselves as a result of QE.  To truly understand it all we'd have to bring in how member banks and fractional reserve banking works along with the fed lending window(s).  No need for that as I think we both know the score.  In simplest terms, the US rents its currency from the Federal Reserve Bank ... the more currency in circulation, the more rent is paid.

---

Orca could you go into greater details please?  I am ignorant of this and would like to learn more from someone who has knowledge in this matter.

---

KauaiOrca said:

Stonehenge said:

KO, I think you may be a tiny bit mixed up on one or two things.

>The interest that the US pays on its debt eventually finds its way into the revenues of the Federal Reserve Bank.  That's how it works.  The Federal Reserve provides virtually unlimited credit to the US Treasury and in return they get paid interest on that debt.

The usa debt is in the form of treasuries which are owed to individuals and foreign countries, not to the fed. Likewise, interest is owed to the owners of those treasuries, not to the fed. I'm not saying the fed does not make money, it does, but not in the way you are saying.

---

You can slice and dice it any way you want but the bottom line is the more money the US Government borrows (through issuing more Treasuries) the more money the Federal Reserve Makes as a lender.  The system is complex, but more debt = more Federal Reserve Profits.  Right now, the Fed Balance sheet is holding over a trillion in Treasuries themselves as a result of QE.  To truly understand it all we'd have to bring in how member banks and fractional reserve banking works along with the fed lending window(s).  No need for that as I think we both know the score.  In simplest terms, the US rents its currency from the Federal Reserve Bank ... the more currency in circulation, the more rent is paid.

---

qman said:

Who receives the interest payments on the debt?  The bondholder.

---

Stonehenge said:

It all goes back into the treasury. You try to make it sound like the fed keeps the interest. If you have any evidence to the contrary, show it. Not just a link to a big website or hours long video, we need a quote backing your statement.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

DottoreWolfe said:

The idea that a government could ever hope to fulfil the needs of a modern developed society is plain silly.
For example, can you imagine any bureaucrat deciding people need PlayStation's or a 100 different types of breakfast cereal! People want choice, variety and a lot of trivial things that no system of state control could deliver. It's competition to supply those wants that create progress and quality of life for the people.

---

I didn't realize that playstations and 100 types of breakfast cereal were needs. Maslow fucked up! Honestly, most of these 'needs' are manufactured by marketing in order to create a materialistic self-loathing society that fills every void in their life with shit they don't need, often at the expense of the planet, and future generations.

Quote:

Because people want those things and Communism can't deliver them, Communist states always resort to repression and violence.
Stupid idea that did not work, does not work and will never work.

---

Marxian Communism has never been realized. Lenon tried, but Stalin didn't continue his work. You should really read up on Marx and Engels. Very interesting stuff, if you care to hear the other side of your argument. If you don't, there's no real point in discussing any of it.

However, I do not advocate Communism. The world isn't ready for that, and it wasn't back in USSR times either.



Communism does not respect individual rights only collective rights.

Quote:

Communism does not consider morality in absolute terms. They see it in relative terms. That means instead of the traditional Biblical way of God being the final arbiter of right and wrong, they accept that there is no God and the State is the arbiter of right and wrong.

---

God, in the traditional sense of the term, is clearly a fictitious character. A character of a uniquely distasteful caliber, I might add. Luckily, we've moved beyond using your special books examples of morality to define policy.

Quote:

That allows them to change the meaning in anyway that is convenient for the Government. If they choose to kill people that are old, infirm or otherwise deemd unproductive, they can decide that that is the moral thing to do. If they decide to take everything a farmer produces for the "common good" that is then the moral thing to do.

---

Communism isn't meant to have such a centralized power structure as we've seen in communist dictatorships. It is meant to be controlled by communities and workers. There are a lot of complicated ideas and understandings involved.

Quote:

In Communism the theory is that there is no private property and everyone owns everything. In reality, no one owns anything, not even their own bodies. Everything belongs to the State.

---

Not true. Firstly, private property under communist theory doesn't refer to personal possessions. It refers to private ownership of the means of production (ie. Factories). Also, the government isn't meant to own the people under Communism. You're speaking of dictatorship.

Quote:

Communism is not capable of generating wealth. It is basically a system of rationing existing wealth. There is no chance of improvement.

---

Communism has different aims than Capitalism. I would like to point out that Communist Russia made many scientific advancements. You can't act like they didn't do anything of value, because that is a lie. I should point out that I am not making the case the USSR style communism is any sort of standard we should aspire to, by the way.

Quote:

Communism does not respect human life. Individuals are inferior to the "collective".

---

Capitalism will murder an entire nation to make a buck.

Quote:

In Communism there can be no free speech, free thought or free press. There can be no religion at all.

---

This is a lie. You're referring to Fascism.

It is supposed to be a classless society but the reality is, again, way different. There are actually two classes: the ruling class and everyone else.

Quote:

Why not just buy a red rag, fix it round your throat, and concede you are happy to never have the right to freedom of speech, of association, language - read the writing of Mao, head bent, like a good communist and forgo the protest in the street with those "activist freedom seekers"

---

Don't act like Capitalist systems have never stifled protest. Our police tear gas peaceful protestors on college compasses, and fire rubber bullets and bean bags at them while donning riot gear and driving tanks down city streets.

---

DottoreWolfe said:

In communism there will always be two classes, the ruling class and everyone else. Also playstations and choice in this day and age are too important to let go of. Playstations now are a means of social interactions which is on Maslow's hierarchy. Sure USSR got the first man to space, but capitalist America go the first man on the moon, the first probe past Saturn (past pluto now) I'd claim America did more. Why should everyone be equal? Why should a neuroseurgon who goes to school, studies hard and made sacrafices you or I wouldn't dream of be paid the same as Joe Shmo who smokes weed all day and doesn't lift a finger. That would be wrong to even consider they should have a similar quality of life, money is part of the fuel driving technological advancemnent. And as before mentioned (in a parevious post), very very few big businesses exist in a communist society, because why would they want to do business in a place where they can't make as much money. Without jobs and the stupid things we like (new computers, new technology, new cars, etc) people would revolt (especially after how accustomed to these things we have become). it basicallt stacks up that the government pays everyone the same wage no matter what job they do. The pay is very small.

People in power in the government pay themselves more.

Since everyone is paid the same, the only way to become rich is to steal. So if you work in a grocery store you might steal some bananas and sell them cheaply to a friend and make a couple bucks. This is the cause of horrible corruption because everyone steals something (this is exactly what happened to the Soviet Union).

Nobody works hard because you will not get paid more because of it, unless you are in the government controlling everything.  ideal communism should have no money, as it it works on an "honor system": everything is free but you take only what you need, and you work hard without any bosses or compensation schemes.

Soviet Union and other implementations of communism had money for workers, but essentially had money-less transfers of goods between firms. Wages did differ based on occupation and seniority. There was a weird situation when pay of engineers was less than pay of manual laborers. There is less incentive for people to work hard in moneyless society, there is less incentive to be the best you can because whether you are a cashier or a heart surgeon or a inventor there is no difference in quality of life. When a mom says "you need to do to good in school and try your best" the son will just reply "why? either way i'll have the same house, same car, same food, basically the same life. I know that personally I wouldn't be going to graduate school if I  wasn't going to get paid big bucks afterwards and have an improved quality of life for my children and I .

---