# Political Ideologies



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

Anybody here have any set of ideals they believe in? Share and debate them here.


----------



## Dr_pyro (May 6, 2013)

screw democrates and republicans. im a padestrian :3


----------



## Hydra (May 6, 2013)

As an American, I think one of the biggest failings of our Constitution is that it practically enshrines the two-party system by mandating the use of winner-take-all first-past-the-post elections. So instead of joining up with a party that really matches your ideals your choices are limited to not joining at all and having no say whatsoever aside from a simple "This guy or that guy" or joining the party that annoys you the least and helping your faction (which is just one of many) try to steer policy inside a larger party in the direction you want.


----------



## DrDingo (May 6, 2013)

In terms of politics, I am a pretty liberal thinker. So my vote would probably go to Labour (when I reach the voting age). If I lived in the USA, I would vote Democrat.


----------



## Ranguvar (May 6, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> If I lived in the USA, I would vote *Democrat*.


Eww, democrats are the scum of the earth.

One of those political tests, for the lulz


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

Hearken! A shitstorm is on its way!


----------



## Heliophobic (May 6, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Anybody here have any set of ideals they believe in? Share and debate them here.



Do you realize what hell you've just unleashed?


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

I mainly went in regards to things like socialism, comunism, conservativism and such, not party, I agree with Hydra in that First Past the Post "democracy" limits choice of represented ideologies, where in Britain we have three strands of liberalism as the three main parties (conservatives=classical liberal, labour=neo-liberal, lib dems=modern liberals) while in America they have the democrats as a disorganised mess and the conservatives as libertarians.

@Saliva: Yes, thats partof the beauty of politics >:3

Political debate is good for the soul and for society anyway.


----------



## PsychicOtter (May 6, 2013)

I have liberal beliefs, by American standards (but apparently that's right-center by UK standards). I'm not super far-left, but I'm a strong democrat. 
Also, this thread is going to get very ugly very quickly.


----------



## Saga (May 6, 2013)

I hate politics. Just a bunch of liars and idiots bending the truth for their own agenda.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

Hmm so far most people are just talking about shitstorms or taking moderate stances.... I need to set this timebomb off.


Im an anarcho-communist.


----------



## Kosdu (May 6, 2013)

I believe in humility and a realistic view based on it's effect on people.

No arrogance from race, religion, culture, and especially not patriotism. I suppose it has it's place but any thing that tells me one person is worth more than another due to one being a part of something or having pride in it has simply no place in any sort of decision making.

If one were to simply realize that all are indeed human, that all are rational beings deserving of life, love, and (a certain level of) respect, plagued by issues and poor decisions, then why would one use hate and pride to excuse atrocities?

This ties in with aikidÅ, even helping one attacking you by doing no terrible damage. Who am I to so punish one for a poor decision?


Simply put, I do not hold myself over others and to do such is asking for trouble.


----------



## Dr_pyro (May 6, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Hmm so far most people are just talking about shitstorms or taking moderate stances.... I need to set this timebomb off.
> 
> 
> Im an anarcho-communist.



so.... you claim to be against government as well as capitalism. The ideology is contradictory in that it portends to be against authority and force.
A follower of anarcho-communism is often called an "oxymoron"
were is the order in no government?? i dont mean to hate. but still..


----------



## PsychicOtter (May 6, 2013)

So if I'm your run-of-the-mill US Democrat (perhaps slightly more liberal than that), would that put me on the right-hand side of the Labour Party in the UK?


----------



## Azure (May 6, 2013)

apparently i am an anarcho-communist

works for me bro

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256384/


----------



## DrDingo (May 6, 2013)

Green_Knight said:


> One of those political tests, for the lulz


I had a go as well, to see what I would end up as. I guess I _sort of _agree with what I got.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

Well actually I lied... kind of. I support that as my ultimatum for humanity, as in I believe that we will reach a point where neither are required. I do not believe it will happen at anytime soon, especially not through revolution. I am in the short term more anti-capitalist, or rather against the exploitation, environmental destruction, and political paths that capitalism will go down. Since fossil fuels are finite but also cheaper than other power sources, unless science can advance it will destroy itself, but probably long after the planet is ruined and global warming is too rapidly developing to stop. Then theres how capitalism inevitably aims for monopolies, ad if a company becomes too powerful for any government to control, and controls the majority of the worlds industries and resources, due to then living in high wealth high power culture, they will likely simply become an economic dictatorship.

Really, I am more of a deliberative socialist. I believe in the nationalisation of the major necessary industries such as health, edcation, energy, and so forth, while the public sector also has some profitable industries to counterbalance the costs of the necessary industries, either acting as competition to other companies to maintain efficiency or providing supply to smaller companies. Meanwhile, eductaion into politics (particularly ideology) is improved and allowed debate in class to increase political understanding and participation, which on the long term should diversify the political ideals of the people and create a government which represents a wider range of beliefs.

In terms of revolution, I believe it should be a rational choice by the majority of a society, and if thats the case I will support it.

Ah yes, and Dr. Pyro, its not contradictory at all, how would it be?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (May 6, 2013)

Can a mod lock this thread? I mean as a preventive measure because there isn't a chance in hell this thread will end up anything but mind-bogglingly horrible.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

Locking a thread pre-emptively is silly, let it run but if it starts getting too personal then fine. But if any chance of there being heated debate is considered "horrible" in your eyes, then dont take part.


----------



## Ranguvar (May 6, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Can a mod lock this thread? I mean as a preventive measure because there isn't a chance in hell this thread will end up anything but mind-bogglingly horrible.


What's wrong with a little chaos? Besides, the worse the thread, the better the lolz.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (May 6, 2013)

Green_Knight said:


> What's wrong with a little chaos? Besides, the worse the thread, the better the lolz.



I know exactly what you mean, but political shitstorms aren't really all that funny. Mostly just irritating.


----------



## Dr_pyro (May 6, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Ah yes, and Dr. Pyro, its not contradictory at all, how would it be?



despite the fact that you need authority and force to limit capitalism.
but anyway i hate politics.


----------



## Kosdu (May 6, 2013)

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/

I do not like politics, and will never adapt myself to any label.


----------



## Azure (May 6, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I know exactly what you mean, but political shitstorms aren't really all that funny. Mostly just irritating.


click here for your solution


----------



## Aleu (May 6, 2013)

Apparently I'm an authoritarian socialist.
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256389/


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

Well anarcho-communism can only exist when capitalism is no more. Anarcho-communism is based on the idea that conflict can be channeled into productive debate while the "state" is simply the people of a community or nation acting as a democratic collective. In terms of production, all work for the good of others, not for self gain. While I recognise it as overly-optimistic hopes for humanity, does not mean we cannot strive for such a society.


----------



## ZerX (May 6, 2013)

You are a cosmopolitan Social Democrat. 15 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 85 percent are more extremist than you
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256390/


----------



## PsychicOtter (May 6, 2013)

I got Cosmopolitan Social Democrat, almost smack in the middle of that chart.  I guess I agree, but it said I leaned more towards anarchy than big government, which is untrue (again, at least by American standards).  Maybe I'm not as liberal as I thought.


----------



## Dr_pyro (May 6, 2013)

Azure said:


> click here for your solution


hahaha solution solved


----------



## Dr_pyro (May 6, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Well anarcho-communism can only exist when capitalism is no more. Anarcho-communism is based on the idea that conflict can be channeled into productive debate while the "state" is simply the people of a community or nation acting as a democratic collective. In terms of production, all work for the good of others, not for self gain. While I recognise it as overly-optimistic hopes for humanity, does not mean we cannot strive for such a society.



i didnt mean to post twice but, Good luck with that.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

And heres my political test result http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256393/


----------



## Dr_pyro (May 6, 2013)

no comment


----------



## Golden (May 6, 2013)

...Some of the question in the posted survey are idiotic.

"We must massively lower our standards of living to save the earth"? Pretty sure that is one for only the most hardcore of the granola munchers. I'm all for being ecologically friendly, any so are many others. That doesn't mean I think everyone should abandon their homes and become forest dwellers.

I'm a social democratic cosmopolitan, whatever the fuck that is.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

It basically means you favour democracy and you have interests in globalisation and ethnic diversity.


----------



## miskey (May 6, 2013)

Ewwwww, politics...

EDIT: Apparently I'm a liberal Cosmopolitan according to the test that Aleu posted


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

*I LOVE MY GOVERNMENT'S PEOPLE AND I GROVEL AT THEIR FEET LIKE A SUBSERVIENT PEON.*


----------



## Bliss (May 6, 2013)

The test says I am a social democrat or a national democratic socialist.


----------



## Inciatus (May 6, 2013)

Apparently I'm a democratic mercantilist. I don't really agree of the mercantilist part unless I am misunderstanding what mercantilism is.

I knew my scores would be quite a bit off from most of the rest of the forum. http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256443/


----------



## Dreaming (May 6, 2013)

I'm a republican. Not one of those crazy American republicans, but one of those European republican. Basically, my only strong, noteworthy political ideology is my anti-monarchist ideologies.... oh gee, I can be pretty damn anti-monarchist, but the whole debate is just a mind-numbing circle of inane repeated arguments which pretty much all boil down to MUH NATIONAL PRIDE and "they have no real power!" (I still don't get it, that's an argument _in favor_ of their rule?? God fucking dammit all). I'm a Eurotrash so obligatory Eurolove~

Political parties in this country are all messed up, the 3 2 major parties are essentially the same damn thing, and the smaller parties are either ass-backwards and outright xeno/homophobic or impossible to take seriously, and they're all led by the kind of people you'd want to punch in the face just for breathing your air. I just vote for the local socialist party, voting for anyone else would get you lynched and hung in this town


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

It says I'm a cosmopolitan social democrat.

That must mean I'm somebody's enemy.


----------



## Artillery Spam (May 6, 2013)

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256456/

down with capitalism

for the Greater Good


----------



## Inciatus (May 6, 2013)

Dreaming said:


> I'm a republican. Not one of those crazy American republicans, but one of those European republican.



I'm a republican, one of those crazy American ones.â€‹ Except on a few points.


----------



## DarrylWolf (May 7, 2013)

I am of the beleif that the government's duties are to protect our physical safety and our property rights. Beyond that, it is every man for himself. If an act does not affect either of those, then it should be Constitutionally-protected free speech under the First Amendment. I don't know if this makes me a Democrat or a Republican.


----------



## Aetius (May 7, 2013)

So yeah...

I got whatever the fuck an *Ordoliberal* is. http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256477/

I am not a filthy leftist.


----------



## Bliss (May 7, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> So yeah...
> 
> I got whatever the fuck an *Ordoliberal* is. http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256477/
> 
> I am not a filthy leftist.


Du bist ein Berliner!


----------



## ADF (May 7, 2013)

I'm all over the place. I recognise the damage uncontrolled capitalism can and does cause, but I also recognise big all powerful (they wish) governments are also disastrous for the public. Somehow we've managed to get both going, uber states helping the private sector plunder the population...

"Marketing of Plant Reproductive Material (PRM)" by the EU is a perfect example of that. A super government using its stolen authority to help a private entity like Monsanto gain a monopoly, which would help Monsanto dominate most of Europe regardless of what the public have to say about it! Thankfully mass public protest has hurt their plans, but its still bad and can go worse in revisions.

We do seem to be living in the worst of all worlds, with a out of control private sector and a bloated state serving its own ends. How then can I comfortably sit in any one ideology? 

If I'm pro business I'm ignoring the damage and suffering they are causing, that tax rates are irrelevant if they don't pay any tax to begin with and that they seem to continuously get away with breaking the law. So the idea of further deregulating and de-taxing them seems absurd, even while I recognise taxes are choking this country (the none globalist companies who have no choice but to pay them). 

But if I'm pro government I'm ignoring that the state is already so large that it's bankrupt, it's bigger than the private sector in this country which is unsustainable, the political class are crooked as we keep discovering and they really couldn't care less about the public they're supposed to be representing. In the UK the government is by and for the city, the rest of the country could rot for all they care. We're the only country in the EU standing up for the banks, we're the only country in the EU lobbying to legalise GMOs. The city owns our government and tells it what to do basically...

There is strong evidence for both sides criticisms of the other side... What's one to do >.=.>


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 7, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> So yeah...
> 
> I got whatever the fuck an *Ordoliberal* is. http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256477/
> 
> I am not a filthy leftist.


I got Patriotic Social Democrat


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (May 7, 2013)

I don't know if I got everything right as I didn't understand everything properly, but apparently I am a Patriotic social democrat. http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/256582/

Other sites told me differently. I guess I'll just stick with inpendendent. It seems to depend on the issue, as other sites have different options for the question.


----------



## Grimfang (May 7, 2013)

Oh man, another Grimfang! I knew they existed, but I've never met another one before.

And I have no idea what to describe my views as, so I took that political test Aleu linked. It said I'm a social democratic cosmopolitan.


----------



## Aleu (May 7, 2013)

HOLY SHIT I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE REAL GRIMFANG D:

Also I like how people are saying I linked the test when I got it from someone else in the thread :lol: Don't know what to make of that.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 7, 2013)

I scored a cosmopolitan social democrat.

Personally I believe in this like raising the import tax ridiculously high to negate how it's cheaper to manufacture in china and such so as to bring back jobs to the country and trickle out theory, whereas on societal issues the government's job is to govern NOT play police to a bunch of people complaining about "oh noes society is in decline".  The jobs aren't coming back to the usa cause it's cheaper to use slave labor I mean paying people a penny a hour in places that are practically prisons with "secure" monitoring and suicidal workers who would like nothing more than to chop off their own heads with a knife cause their working conditions are so horrible that all they want is to leave, even though they can't are forced to work "happy" workers who are "happy" to be working at such generous places provided to them.  If you were to increase the import tax to negate the cheaper costs of manufacturing in such countries then the jobs would come back cause then it would be cheaper here.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (May 7, 2013)

Everyone's a democrat I suppose. Maybe they should add more options to the questions. Here's other political quizes to see if you score similar to those beliefs in the one that was given on the forum. If not, than they are probably not very accurate. They all have different questions. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2012/quiz/

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

http://www.politopia.com/quiz

I like this one: http://www.pbs.org/arguing/quiz.html

This one looks good: http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...709/interactive-quiz-how-progressive-are-you/


----------



## Inciatus (May 7, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Everyone's a democrat I suppose.


I think that is just saying that we all prefer a democratic system of government as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship.

Results from the quizzes you put up:
1) Very Conservative overall (quite a bit past the tea partyers), at the very end of the right economic issues, moderate democrat social issues
2) Gary Johnson 97%, Mitt Romney 73%, Barrack Obama 1%
3) northwest
4) 81.8 Conservative, 9.1 Liberal, 9.1 Social
5) Very Conservative - 101/400


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

> Oh man, another Grimfang! I knew they existed, but I've never met another one before.
> 
> And I have no idea what to describe my views as, so I took that  political test Aleu linked. It said I'm a social democratic  cosmopolitan.


'Sup man. Sorry to be stealing your site title of the only grimfang. We should probably try and sort out how to differentiate between us in regards to nicknames/shortened names.



> HOLY SHIT I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE REAL GRIMFANG D:



Ouch my pride. I've been known as grimfang999 for a good 8-10 years, maybe even a bit longer, I am pretty much a real grimfang :/



> I'm all over the place. I recognise the damage uncontrolled capitalism  can and does cause, but I also recognise big all powerful (they wish)  governments are also disastrous for the public. Somehow we've managed to  get both going, uber states helping the private sector plunder the  population...
> 
> "Marketing of Plant Reproductive Material (PRM)" by the EU is a perfect  example of that. A super government using its stolen authority to help a  private entity like Monsanto gain a monopoly, which would help Monsanto  dominate most of Europe regardless of what the public have to say about  it! Thankfully mass public protest has hurt their plans, but its still bad and can go worse in revisions.
> 
> ...


 Although Im biased, I would personally say the government is the safer bet. At least you can vote for them. What needs to be done is the government needs a restart, it is too built up in a centuries long culture of elitest power, while have them providing the essencial services and counterbalancing the costs, and more democracy involved in the decision making process.

However, until that happens (if it will), I am along the same lines as you, the private sector is too dangerous and the public sector too useless.




> I'm a republican. Not one of those crazy American republicans, but one  of those European republican. Basically, my only strong, noteworthy  political ideology is my anti-monarchist ideologies.... oh gee, I can be  pretty damn anti-monarchist, but the whole debate is just a  mind-numbing circle of inane repeated arguments which pretty much all  boil down to MUH NATIONAL PRIDE and "they have no real power!" (I still  don't get it, that's an argument _in favor_ of their rule?? God fucking dammit all). I'm a Eurotrash so obligatory Eurolove~
> 
> Political parties in this country are all messed up, the 3  2 major parties are essentially the same damn thing, and the smaller  parties are either ass-backwards and outright xeno/homophobic or  impossible to take seriously, and they're all led by the kind of people  you'd want to punch in the face just for breathing your air. I just vote  for the local socialist party, voting for anyone else would get you  lynched and hung in this town



I agree there that for the most part the monarchy is now quite pointless, only a group of celebraties now. However, there is one main reason as to why they still exist

For me, I dont care eiher way, but if I were to make an arguement which wasnt economic it would be to remove the monarchy due to what they represent, AKA imperialism and British supremacy, which in my eyes is bad because I believe nationalism is the killer of progress.


----------



## Vukasin (May 7, 2013)

I don't really follow politics all that much but I think my beliefs would fall in between Socialist and Liberal.


----------



## ADF (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Although Im biased, I would personally say the government is the safer bet. At least you can vote for them. What needs to be done is the government needs a restart, it is too built up in a centuries long culture of elitest power, while have them providing the essencial services and counterbalancing the costs, and more democracy involved in the decision making process.
> 
> However, until that happens (if it will), I am along the same lines as you, the private sector is too dangerous and the public sector too useless.



The public sector is more than useless, it's dangerous at times.

I think we're seeing something along those lines in the UK with all the councillors that UKIP got in recently, taking 25-26% (?) of the vote, which shocked the main three quite a bit. Regardless of individuals opinions on UKIP, they're pushed as the party compose of normal people with real jobs and that's connecting with people sick of the three party elitism. I think the Conservatives are making the same mistakes Labour did when they called anyone with immigration concerns racist, particularly with Gorden Brown's "bigoted women" incident. The Tories are calling UKIP loonies, clowns & closet racists. Which in effect is labelling all the disenfranchised Labour/Tory/LibDem voters loonies, clowns & closet racists; and insulting people isn't a very effective means of getting them to vote for you...


----------



## Kosdu (May 7, 2013)

@ADF

If only we had a party like that in the U.S., that seems extremely racist but denies it... Oh wait...


Oh you, GOP.

Honestly I don't know anything of english politics or the UKIP in particular, but immigration concerns can be taken too far, though they are kinda neccessary. Funny how easy it is to run drugs in from Canada but so hard (easy but more complicated) it is to run them from Mexico. Guess which country people are racist against, though it does pose a much bigger threat?


----------



## ADF (May 7, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> @ADF
> 
> If only we had a party like that in the U.S., that seems extremely racist but denies it... Oh wait...
> 
> ...



As someone pointed out on the radio on the day of the election results, it's idiotic to call a pro common wealth party racist... 

If you're looking for xenophobes, look no further than the EU.


----------



## Kosdu (May 7, 2013)

ADF said:


> As someone pointed out on the radio on the day of the election results, it's idiotic to call a pro common wealth party racist...
> 
> If you're looking for xenophobes, look no further than the EU.



To an American, it as is if a different language is spoken.

Hopefully things get shaken in a good way there soon.


----------



## ADF (May 7, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> To an American, it as is if a different language is spoken.
> 
> Hopefully things get shaken in a good way there soon.



The EU has essentially built a wall around member states, restricting trade activities beyond the single market. In 2011 the UK was sent a bill for £20 million because it sourced garlic from China rather than within the European single market, a tariff designed to protect EU members farmers and punish anyone outside EU membership. 

In fact member states are not allowed to negotiate trade deals outside of the European Union. We have to let a EU representative negotiate trade deals outside the single market on our behalf, and hope after they've considered the interests of all member states; that we still get a decent deal out of it. Tariffs and ridiculous regulations aimed at penalising countries outside the EU are just one example of the EU's disdain against the rest of the world. If it had its way it wouldn't deal with the rest of the world at all, restricting all activities to within its bubble of member states. It's only in recent years because of the Eurocrisis that some of these measures have been relaxed, in the hope of bringing more money in.

UKIP in contrast want the UK to free trade with India, Africa, Pakistan and other common wealth countries. Opening up the UK economy to the world, rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions like the EU mandates. Yet UKIP is xenophobic while the EU is the height of openness? Maybe to their member states, but they don't want to be friends with the rest of the world. Instead of the image of openness that the EU likes to portray, they're one of the most locked down and anti foreigner markets in the world. They see developing countries as a threat rather than a opportunity.


----------



## Xolani (May 7, 2013)

I'm a member of the Green Party. Heh.


----------



## ZerX (May 7, 2013)

at the next EU elections I will be voting for the federalist party. they have the right ideas for where europe/the EU should go in the future
http://federalistparty.eu


----------



## Aetius (May 7, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Personally I believe in this like raising the import tax ridiculously high to negate how it's cheaper to manufacture in china and such so as to bring back jobs to the country and trickle out theory,



My Economics major wants to slap you >:V 

Am I the only Capitalist here? ;~;


----------



## PsychicOtter (May 7, 2013)

The vast majority of Americans are capitalists.  Socialism, communism, etc. is very rare in America, especially when compared to the European countries.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> My Economics major wants to slap you >:V
> 
> Am I the only Capitalist here? ;~;



No, but you're also right.

We should implement CF's idea so every large business goes into solvency hell, spiraling into bankruptcy.

WHERE ARE YOUR JOBS NOW?!?!?!


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

While I claim to be socialist/communist, I do have a reasonable understanding of economics (I think its a good amount but if you have a major my knowledge probably ales to yours). Its just I feel that unregulated capitalism is inherantly flawed, putting short term profit incentive over many massive problems such as energy over-consumption, poverty, use of wealth to manipulate governments, environmental destruction, and so forth. Granted not every company or CEO is like this, but the good ones are exceptions to the rule rather than a significant proportion.

Regulated capitalism could work, as long as the government has the balls to push for the minimisation of negative externatilities and exploitation, but the more involved the state gets in controling capitalism and economic growth it defeats the entire point of capitalism (To expand your company and eliminate competition), and leads to the problem that the CEOs will just take more money from the company for their own gain, or most of the money goes into the government, in which case they might as well be owned by the government.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2013)

Saying "there are problems" doesn't show one system is better than the other.

I favor capitalism because it exploits a basic facet of human nature.



Grimfang999 said:


> but the more involved the state gets in controling capitalism and economic growth it defeats the entire point of capitalism (To expand your company and eliminate competition)



That's exactly what we DON'T want, and where antitrust laws come into play.

We *do* have some amount of regulation that prevents this from happening.

Fuck, now even Mexico does.


----------



## BigwiggingAround (May 7, 2013)

I think world leaders should just fuck each other instead of negotiating and make international leanings based on how their opponent is in bed. Makes perfect sense, ya'll.


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

BigwiggingAround said:


> I think world leaders should just fuck each other instead of negotiating and make international leanings based on how their opponent is in bed. Makes perfect sense, ya'll.


It'd be like a giant international lemonparty.

Ewwwww.


----------



## BigwiggingAround (May 7, 2013)

Machine said:


> It'd be like a giant international lemonparty.
> 
> Ewwwww.


Just in the beginning; there would soon be an incentive to vote for sexy candidates and avoid all the grossness.


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

BigwiggingAround said:


> Just in the beginning; there would soon be an incentive to vote for sexy candidates and avoid all the grossness.


It could be like a game show, and people could call in to vote for the sexiest candidate.


----------



## Kosdu (May 7, 2013)

If the sex was chosen at random with no regards for gender it would make it so that only those devoted to helping people would run for president. I mean, no fat cat wants to be buttrammed (if he is straight).

Relevant:

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...oAQ&biw=320&bih=416#biv=i|2;d|RhAk9UN9C5ArCM:


----------



## ZerX (May 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Saying "there are problems" doesn't show one system is better than the other.
> 
> I favor capitalism because it exploits a basic facet of human nature.
> 
> ...


regulations on wall street have failed as global recession that started in 2008 wouldn't have happened if smart ass bankers and investors wouldn't have been playing with high risk investments and fucking up at the end.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 7, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> My Economics major wants to slap you >:V
> 
> Am I the only Capitalist here? ;~;


Holy shitake mushrooms, you're a capitalist?


----------



## Azure (May 7, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> My Economics major wants to slap you >:V
> 
> Am I the only Capitalist here? ;~;


a degree in economics is like a degree is liberal arts. a pretty piece of paper that is thoroughly useless in application towards real life shit.


----------



## Inciatus (May 7, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> My Economics major wants to slap you >:V
> 
> Am I the only Capitalist here? ;~;


Well no

Also weren't the last three versions of you communist?


----------



## Aetius (May 7, 2013)

Azure said:


> a degree in economics is like a degree is liberal arts. a pretty piece of paper that is thoroughly useless in application towards real life shit.



Its the critical thinking skills that come with the degree that you apply towards real life (Or that is what the salesman told me).

Miles ahead of art degrees (;v)




Inciatus said:


> Also weren't the last three versions of you communist?



Communism is so 1991


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

Azure said:


> a degree in economics is like a degree is liberal arts. a pretty piece of paper that is thoroughly useless in application towards real life shit.



Except you know, being able to understandthe stock markets, be a banker, stock-broker, politician and so forth.

It depends on what you want to do with your life. If you want to make money, well then its there. If you want to do something which will actually get something done which can help others however, unless you go into the field of political-economics it probably wont help.

Unless your point was all university degrees are useless. which depends on what you plan to do.


----------



## Xolani (May 7, 2013)

"Capitalism is a good idea because it solves the problems caused by  Capitalism" is the main argument I tend to hear in favour of it.

"Capitalism will solve inefficiency and waste!" that's why in a capitalist market, 1/2 of all food is wasted in a world where people still starve to death.

"Capitalism will provide jobs and livelihoods!" that's why full employment has only ever been achieved under a Keynesian mixed economy.

"Capitalism will create a sustainable economy!" an economy that perpetually relies upon growth for prosperity cannot be sustainable.

I could go on.


----------



## Bambi (May 7, 2013)

My political idealology is that our concept of rights, wrongs, should be based entirely on what makes us tick. Although that's the present thought, it currently fails my own low standards and will be replaced with another shortly.


----------



## ZerX (May 7, 2013)

Xolani said:


> "Capitalism will solve inefficiency and waste!" that's why in a capitalist market, 1/2 of all food is wasted in a world where people still starve to death.


It's cheaper to destroy food than to ship it across the world to the people who really need it. Lots of companies give leftover food away to organization if they come and pick it up. obviously big corporations aren't going to ship leftover food at their expenses so leftover food gets destroyed


----------



## Aleu (May 7, 2013)

ZerX said:


> It's cheaper to destroy food than to ship it across the world to the people who really need it. Lots of companies give leftover food away to organization if they come and pick it up. obviously big corporations aren't going to ship leftover food at their expenses so leftover food gets destroyed


Cool but that still isn't solving inefficiency and waste.


----------



## Hydra (May 7, 2013)

a


----------



## PsychicOtter (May 7, 2013)

Xolani said:


> "Capitalism is a good idea because it solves the problems caused by  Capitalism" is the main argument I tend to hear in favour of it.
> 
> "Capitalism will solve inefficiency and waste!" that's why in a capitalist market, 1/2 of all food is wasted in a world where people still starve to death.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, what system do you believe in?
Socialism/communism works only in a perfect world.  Unfortunately, we do not live in one.  In addition, almost all incentive goes out the window.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 7, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> Out of curiosity, what system do you believe in?
> Socialism/communism works only in a perfect world.  Unfortunately, we do not live in one.  In addition, almost all incentive goes out the window.


Capitalism only works when you are stabbing someone in the back and stealing their wallet.


----------



## Golden (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> It basically means you favour democracy and you have interests in globalisation and ethnic diversity.



No, I understand that part. It just seems to me that being a pro-free trade socialist is quite the oxymoron.


----------



## PsychicOtter (May 7, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Capitalism only works when you are stabbing someone in the back and stealing their wallet.


Capitalism has its serious flaws, however in my opinion there aren't any systems that would work better.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> Out of curiosity, what system do you believe in?
> Socialism/communism works only in a perfect world.  Unfortunately, we do not live in one.  In addition, almost all incentive goes out the window.


Only if incentive is monetary. What of altruism, the intent of helping your fellow man? Likewise, communism is based on interdependancy, if one refuses their part who is to say they will be refused also? The "incentive" argument here only works if you believe incentive can only be for direct gains. You may argue it doesnt happen this way, Im not saying it does, but the possability does exist, even if it is hard to achieve.

I would reply to Hydra, but its late and Im fucking tired, so night peeps.

Actually first



> No, I understand that part. It just seems to me that being a pro-free trade socialist is quite the oxymoron.


Not entirely, it just means the national economy is run by the state. You could maybe argue that on an international level the government will trade just as a compant would.

Other than that... yeah doesnt make sense unless you are like me and have long term ideals but more practical short term plans.


----------



## PsychicOtter (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Only if incentive is monetary. What of altruism, the intent of helping your fellow man? Likewise, communism is based on interdependancy, if one refuses their part who is to say they will be refused also? The "incentive" argument here only works if you believe incentive can only be for direct gains. *You may argue it doesnt happen this way, Im not saying it does, but the possability does exist, even if it is hard to achieve.*


That is EXACTLY what my point is.  In the real world, incentive for the average man is about 90% monetary.  As I said, this would work great in a perfect world where everyone is completely selfless and isn't as concerned with their own well-being as opposed to the community.  That is not possible in our society.  I can't support a system that would only work in a fantasy world.


----------



## Golden (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Only if incentive is monetary. What of altruism, the intent of helping your fellow man? Likewise, communism is based on interdependancy, if one refuses their part who is to say they will be refused also? The "incentive" argument here only works if you believe incentive can only be for direct gains. You may argue it doesnt happen this way, Im not saying it does, but the possability does exist, even if it is hard to achieve.
> 
> I would reply to Hydra, but its late and Im fucking tired, so night peeps.
> 
> ...



I've taken alot of these kinds of tests and I seem to get a different result every time. I simply think that many of them are bunk. In reality, I am egalitarian but opposed to central planning.

What do you mean long term ideals and short term plans?


----------



## Xolani (May 8, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> Out of curiosity, what system do you believe in?



I did say I'm a member of the Green party. I'm a social democrat leaning towards "socialism lite", eg: a citizen's income.



> Socialism/communism works only in a perfect world.



One could easily argue the same about Capitalism.



> Unfortunately, we do not live in one.  In addition, almost all incentive goes out the window.



It's naive to think people won't go to university, won't take highly-skilled jobs, and generally won't try to better themselves just because the state unconditionally guarantees a basic standard of living for every citizen.


----------



## Aleu (May 8, 2013)

Guys I have like, the most radical idea.

How about okay


bear with me

we *don't* rely on one system for everything.

I mean, I can't imagine how godawful schools and such if they were capitalistic. Pretty much any school would be like college. People would have to pay fees for things like the fire department to put out a fire. Yes, this has happened. The person forgot to pay the yearly fee and as a result, the firefighters came out only to prevent it from spreading to the other houses who paid. Then they watched as the guy's home burnt down.

I know I'm a bossy as fuck liberal but capitalism isn't all bad. Just *all* capitalism is bad because some things_ just won't work out_.


----------



## Xolani (May 8, 2013)

It's called a mixed economy.


----------



## zanaelf (May 8, 2013)

Paradisian... _"a world without work or money, government, police, and wars, people can do art,make music invent stuff, explore the universe and have fun, while robots/machines/technology do all the menial tasks."_


----------



## Troj (May 8, 2013)

I mentioned it before, but ya'll might enjoy the quizzes and scales at yourmorals.org, where you can compare your personal ethics and your moral yardsticks with those of self-identified Liberals and self-identified Conservatives in the larger sample.

Oh, and I'm apparently a social Democratic Cosmopolitan. Sounds about right, even though some of the questions, as usual, didn't have satisfactory answers for me. I'm surprised I was skewed more towards Communism, since I'm an avowed Capitalist, albeit with some Socialistic tendencies (so, maybe that's it).


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (May 8, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> Out of curiosity, what system do you believe in?
> Socialism/communism works only in a perfect world.  Unfortunately, we do not live in one.  In addition, almost all incentive goes out the window.


 Nothing is fair in life and people are always trying to achieve that, and probably never will. Can we get close to fairness? Maybe we can, but, it's all about people willing to compromise. This could be a lesson for humanity that no one seems to fucking get or care about. Socialism/Communism is the result of failed Capitalism, where people are forced to do shit and make it work out, because of their careless actions in Capitalism. I like the libertarian ideology, but it can't workout unless people are responsible for their own actions. Capitalism works out of generosity. Everything in this world is almost like a lesson for the beings that live here. It's kind of cool when you realize how nature has these laws that make sense.


----------



## Matt Conner (May 8, 2013)

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so I guess that makes me a libertarian. I don't like describing myself with that word though, it makes me sound like a spoiled douchebag X3


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 8, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> That is EXACTLY what my point is.  In the real world, incentive for the average man is about 90% monetary.  As I said, this would work great in a perfect world where everyone is completely selfless and isn't as concerned with their own well-being as opposed to the community.  That is not possible in our society.  I can't support a system that would only work in a fantasy world.


One may argue this: Monetary incentive at the current time is the biggest incentive, but that is only because we are raised within an economy built on collecting wealth, and money is what you need to get things. In other societies, the biggest incentive to do something could easilly be religious (such as in the middle east), and then there are small communities which do it for self-sufficiency. Monetary incentive is a *cultural* structure, we learn it, it is not innate. The biggest incentive to work is not simply money, but what you are raised to believe. The adaptability of human nature is what true communism and anarchism is based on, that people can and will adapt to suit their environment and community.


Golden said:


> I've taken alot of these kinds of tests and I seem to get a different result every time. I simply think that many of them are bunk. In reality, I am egalitarian but opposed to central planning.
> 
> What do you mean long term ideals and short term plans?


Oh yeah I wouldnt trust the tests unless you dont know yourself. Just find an ideal which suits you.

As for what I mean, I will refer you to a previous post of mine


TheMetalVelocity said:


> Nothing is fair in life and people are always trying to achieve that, and probably never will. Can we get close to fairness? Maybe we can, but, it's all about people willing to compromise. This could be a lesson for humanity that no one seems to fucking get or care about. Socialism/Communism is the result of failed Capitalism, where people are forced to do shit and make it work out, because of their careless actions in Capitalism. I like the libertarian ideology, but it can't workout unless people are responsible for their own actions. Capitalism works out of generosity. Everything in this world is almost like a lesson for the beings that live here. It's kind of cool when you realize how nature has these laws that make sense.



I mostly agree with you, but you seem to have a twisted version of what socialism/communism and capitalism is. While socialism and communism can come out of failed capitalism, it doesnt need to be except through the route of violent revolution. Likewise, capitalism does not work out of generosity, but of necessity in greed. Capitalism in an individualistic system, it requires that people look out only for themselves. Jobs and wages are there so there is dvision of labour and improved output, so the managers can create more money. Work conditions have only improved due to government intervention under a mixed economy. And I know you said libertarianism only works if everyone is responsable for their actions, but then that is basically the same in a communist society.

Ah yes, I just want to add this. In a truly communist society according to marx, it wouldnt be everyone is forced to work, but rather it would reach a point where produce such as food would be in such high excess that its value would be practically worthless. At that level, without the control of market forces, people would not need to work as much, and would be allowed to devote more time to self-government and thus full democracy could be achieved, as that was his main goal. In many ways, I agree with him, but I wouldnt call myself a marxist, as while many of his ideas are good many are flawed, and the betetr ideas I figured myself out at the age of 16 anyway.


----------



## Xolani (May 8, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Ah yes, I just want to add this. In a truly communist society according to marx, it wouldnt be everyone is forced to work, but rather it would reach a point where produce such as food would be in such high excess that its value would be practically worthless. At that level, without the control of market forces, people would not need to work as much, and would be allowed to devote more time to self-government and thus full democracy could be achieved, as that was his main goal.



We already live in a world where we produce enough food to feed everyone 3 times over. In actual fact, we already live in a post-scarcity world. _Capitalism is the problem_. Some people get way more food than they need, while others starve to death, and half of all food produced is never eaten and gets wasted.

What are we told the solution is to this inefficiency and waste (an inefficiency on which many lives are lost)? More capitalism. So we work our planet harder and harder every year, when it's already surpassed its long-term agricultural capacity. Telling people more capitalism will solve those hungry mouths. More capitalism will solve that waste.

Capitalism has never solved waste or inefficiency, it has only caused it, in one of the most fundamental aspects of human life; food.


----------



## Aetius (May 8, 2013)

Xolani said:


> We already live in a world where we produce enough food to feed everyone 3 times over. In actual fact, we already live in a post-scarcity world. _Capitalism is the problem_. Some people get way more food than they need, while others starve to death, and half of all food produced is never eaten and gets wasted.
> 
> What are we told the solution is to this inefficiency and waste (an inefficiency on which many lives are lost)? More capitalism. So we work our planet harder and harder every year, when it's already surpassed its long-term agricultural capacity. Telling people more capitalism will solve those hungry mouths. More capitalism will solve that waste.
> 
> Capitalism has never solved waste or inefficiency, it has only caused it, in one of the most fundamental aspects of human life; food.



Market Capitalism is less of a reason for the unequal distribution of food around the world. Trade barriers, corruption, war, bad infrastructure, and most importantly logistics are huge factors for such inefficiencies. It is simply a fallacy to leave the blame on market capitalism, when so many other factors are at play behind the scenes.



Grimfang999 said:


> In a truly communist society according to marx, it wouldnt be everyone is forced to work, but rather it would reach a point where produce such as food would be in such high excess that its value would be practically worthless.



Its a shame that late 1910s-early 20s Soviet Russia proved this idea meaningless, as many farmers would opt to create a surplus when there is financial incentive, rather than out of the goodness of their heart. Even lenin saw this and created the NEP (Where farmers could sell some crops for profit for a higher yield).


----------



## CannonFodder (May 8, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> Market Capitalism is less of a reason for the unequal distribution of food around the world. Trade barriers, corruption, war, bad infrastructure, and most importantly logistics are huge factors for such inefficiencies. It is simply a fallacy to leave the blame on market capitalism, when so many other factors are at play behind the scenes.


What about within our own country?  Is there why children should go hungry at night within our own country when we produce so much food?  You can't exactly blame trade barriers or such when it's within one's own country


----------



## Xolani (May 8, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> Market Capitalism is less of a reason for the unequal distribution of food around the world. Trade barriers, corruption, war, bad infrastructure, and most importantly logistics are huge factors for such inefficiencies. It is simply a fallacy to leave the blame on market capitalism, when so many other factors are at play behind the scenes.



Yes, I am sure logistics is a problem, when a Liberian immigrant who sends money back to her barely subsisting family, working in supermarket waste disposal, finds perfectly edible fruit in the waste labelled "Produce of Liberia".

The fact of the matter is that much of the wasted food is actually imported from countries whose own populations suffer from food poverty. It's ridiculous. And it's driven by capitalism.


----------



## Aetius (May 8, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> What about within our own country?  Is there why children should go hungry at night within our own country when we produce so much food?  You can't exactly blame trade barriers or such when it's within one's own country



When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty. However, countries that focus on a healthy market system rather than a Command/communist system tend to see less people going hungry each night. Nothing will change the fact that there will be those in poverty, and eliminating complete poverty is a Utopia.


----------



## Xolani (May 8, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty.



No, relieve the pressure for people to conform to the need to comply with the capitalist directive to get a job that generates revenue for the rich and taxes for the government, and help communities to re-localise their own food production. Community farming is an easy solution to the vast majority of food poverty.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 8, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty. However, countries that focus on a healthy market system rather than a Command/communist system tend to see less people going hungry each night. Nothing will change the fact that there will be those in poverty, and eliminating complete poverty is a Utopia.


Then explain to me why there's so many people in shelters and why so many people in the usa struggle to feed their family?  If a capitalist economy is so good for us that explain to me why we had people digging in the trash for food, or are you blind to the reality you can see for yourself walking down the streets?  Do you walk down a street and every time you see a homeless person go to yourself, "He's just a figment of my imagination"?


----------



## Aetius (May 8, 2013)

Xolani said:


> Yes, I am sure logistics is a problem, when a Liberian immigrant who sends money back to her barely subsisting family, working in supermarket waste disposal, finds perfectly edible fruit in the waste labelled "Produce of Liberia".
> 
> The fact of the matter is that much of the wasted food is actually imported from countries whose own populations suffer from food poverty. It's ridiculous. And it's driven by capitalism.



A world without waste and inefficiency is essentially a utopia as I previously mentioned.
Concerning countries like say, Liberia, have very limited arable land and can only export a few amount of materials. An example would be that Liberia exports fruit like bananas.  No you cannot have a population live on specialized fruit, so a country with small amounts of arable land mostly import their food. This is also kind of why countries with HUGE amounts of arable land (I.E. The USA), export tons of agricultural products to countries like liberia.(US is also a huge exporter of Agricultural products ($958.9 billion http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0848.pdf). 

If anything, one could argue that international trade under a market system does much to help with the distribution of food. 





Xolani said:


> No, relieve the pressure for people to conform to the need to comply with the capitalist directive to get a job that generates revenue for the rich and taxes for the government, and help communities to re-localise their own food production. Community farming is an easy solution to the vast majority of food poverty.



Community farming does not work on a large scale, nor does it deliver a large enough crop yield compared to the huge industrial farms. There is a reason why huge corporate farms took over the place of small community holdings. Bingo, they usually deliver a larger crop yield.

If you want to attempt community farming on a large scale, the 1920s-1980s kinda proved that it does not work on providing a large yield and surplus. 



CannonFodder said:


> Then explain to me why there's so many people in shelters and why so many people in the usa struggle to feed their family? If a capitalist economy is so good for us that explain to me why we had people digging in the trash for food, or are you blind to the reality you can see for yourself walking down the streets? Do you walk down a street and every time you see a homeless person go to yourself, "He's just a figment of my imagination"?



If you read my post, you would have realized that I did not say "Poverty does not exist". You are going to have poverty anyway, but it tends to be on the lower side compared to economies running on the command system. (I.E The former Peoples Republic of Poland)

(I got work, so Ill be back in about 3 hours tops)


----------



## Xolani (May 8, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> A world without waste and inefficiency is essentially a utopia as I previously mentioned.
> Concerning countries like say, Liberia, have very limited arable land and can only export a few amount of materials.



Did you pull that fact out of your arse or is based on any actual facts? 3.4% of land in Liberia is used as arable land, but more is capable of being used. Soil erosion is causing a creeping crisis for farming in Liberia, due to deforestation, another problem with the much vaunted market capitalist system. Prior to the civil war, agriculture was the primary industry in Liberia, where subsistence crops were commonly produced.



> An example would be that Liberia exports fruit like bananas.  No you cannot have a population live on specialized fruit, so a country with small amounts of arable land mostly import their food.



By market value, Liberia exports more sugarcane, coffee and palm oil than it does bananas. It would help if you did the most basic research about a country's economy before commenting on it. This land can, and has previously, been used for subsistence food production. It is only because of market economics that it is now used for export purposes, rather than feeding the local communities.



> If anything, one could argue that international trade under a market system does much to help with the distribution of food.



No, it introduces the inefficiency of encouraging farmers etc. to produce crops for profit (which usually ends up primarily in the hands of foreign investors, rather than the local economy, in cases like Liberia), rather than producing food for the local community.



> Community farming does not work on a large scale, nor does it deliver a large enough crop yield compared to the huge industrial farms.



It's not supposed to be a large-scale project. It's a local project.



> There is a reason why huge corporate farms took over the place of small community holdings. Bingo, they usually deliver a larger crop yield.



No, division of labour is the principle cause. Industrial farms also provide fewer jobs per unit of food produced, compared with community farming or even just small business farming. Hardly something you can call a victory in an economic climate like this.



> If you want to attempt community farming on a large scale, the 1920s-1980s kinda proved that it does not work on providing a large yield and surplus.



Can you show me any evidence that what could be called "community farming" was 1) practiced on a large scale during that time, and 2) that it was phased out due to inefficiency?



> If you read my post, you would have realized that I did not say "Poverty does not exist". You are going to have poverty anyway, but it tends to be on the lower side compared to economies running on the command system. (I.E The former Peoples Republic of Poland)



The fact that you keep calling it a "Command system" tells me how much you actually know about economics, as what you are referring to is called a planned economy. Unless you are referring to genuine command economies, in which case you're introducing a false dichotomy and I'm equally going to disregard that.


----------



## Aetius (May 8, 2013)

Xolani said:


> Did you pull that fact out of your arse or is based on any actual facts? 3.4% of land in Liberia is used as arable land, but more is capable of being used. Soil erosion is causing a creeping crisis for farming in Liberia, due to deforestation, another problem with the much vaunted market capitalist system. Prior to the civil war, agriculture was the primary industry in Liberia, where subsistence crops were commonly produced.


3.4% of arable land, considering Liberia's small geographic size and their growing young population, isn't currently meeting local food needs. The Liberians at the moment are specializing their land in luxury/commodity agriculture and would have much much to gain in their terms of trade than producing just food for local needs. At this moment, Liberia is importing more of its foodstuffs. 



Xolani said:


> By market value, Liberia exports more sugarcane, coffee and palm oil than it does bananas. It would help if you did the most basic research about a country's economy before commenting on it. This land can, and has previously, been used for subsistence food production. It is only because of market economics that it is now used for export purposes, rather than feeding the local communities.



I'm sorry that I used a random luxury/commodity agricultural resource as a random example, and lo and behold, Liberia exports luxury/commodity agricultural resources. There is no reason to try to act smug about it. Concerning why the farmers and companies in Liberia choose to export these products, it is because Liberia would have much more of a gain in their terms of trade from exporting those resources than just farming agricultural foodstuffs for a domestic market. Now as another example, lets say more of the land that is being used for the export market is used for domestic agricultural foodstuff. THIS WOULD BE A VERY VERY BAD THING FOR LIBERIA'S TERMS OF TRADE AND PISS OFF LOTS OF FARMERS IN THAT INDUSTRY. Liberia's exports would decrease, and put them in an even worse position. 




Xolani said:


> No, it introduces the inefficiency of encouraging farmers etc. to produce crops for profit (which usually ends up primarily in the hands of foreign investors, rather than the local economy, in cases like Liberia), rather than producing food for the local community.



If you read my previous post, you would have known that farmers will not grow jack shit worth of surplus if they did not have any incentive to grow that surplus. Here is a rather historical example. 




Xolani said:


> No, division of labour is the principle cause. Industrial farms also provide fewer jobs per unit of food produced, compared with community farming or even just small business farming. Hardly something you can call a victory in an economic climate like this.



If you look at it from an unemotional, evil capitalist like me. It is usually a better thing that there are less jobs per unit of food created on the part of the consumer. This allows a company to GREATLY cut costs and allows the company to be able to sell a product at a much lower market value at the same time making a profit. This also allows more efficiency, as if you have too much unneeded labor, the law of diminishing returns will kick in. 



Xolani said:


> Can you show me any evidence that what could be called "community farming" was 1) practiced on a large scale during that time, and 2) that it was phased out due to inefficiency?



Enjoy. 



Xolani said:


> The fact that you keep calling it a "Command system" tells me how much you actually know about economics, as what you are referring to is called a planned economy. Unless you are referring to genuine command economies, in which case you're introducing a false dichotomy and I'm equally going to disregard that.



Maybe because this whole time I have been defending the Market capitalist system, which is 95.55% of what all countries in the world currently engage in. The only real alternative to the main system that we use would be a command system. I feel that comparing both a country from a market capitalist system and another from a command system is a fair assessment. 



Xolani said:


> The fact that you keep calling it a "Command system" *tells me how much you actually know about economics*



Really?
Sorry that for 3 years economics has been my field, I obviously don't know anything about it.
You really do not need to stoop down to that level.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 8, 2013)

Just going to say, Im glad this thread has formed into proper debate now, I was a bit concerned when most of the first page or two was fairly stunted in simply saying "I support this".



Serbia Strong said:


> Market Capitalism is less of a reason for the unequal distribution of food around the world. Trade barriers, corruption, war, bad infrastructure, and most importantly logistics are huge factors for such inefficiencies. It is simply a fallacy to leave the blame on market capitalism, when so many other factors are at play behind the scenes.



Its a pretty big issue. Sure those are other issues but there are places not in war that have on mass poverty, such as India, which also has rapidly developing business. Im not entirely sure how trade barriers are seperate from capitalism, and surely bad infrastructure is something capitalism promises to change? Poverty persists in India primarilly due to wage exploitation.

In Africa, corruption and war are indeed major issues however, but often wars are derived from need.



Serbia Strong said:


> Its a shame that late 1910s-early 20s Soviet Russia proved this idea meaningless, as many farmers would opt to create a surplus when there is financial incentive, rather than out of the goodness of their heart. Even lenin saw this and created the NEP (Where farmers could sell some crops for profit for a higher yield).


Well there were two main reasons for this:

1) The farming regions were communal, based on trade, they had no interest in the affairs outside of their isolated communes. Leading on from that...
2) They did not consent to communism, or rather, "communism".

As such, they were isolated communities built on trade who did not agree with the actions the cities took, even taking the side of the whites in the civil war just after the revolution. Yes, money incentives were a major thing, but the reason why they didnt change was primarilly due to their lack of consent to the revolution. I may be a communist at heart, but I recognise that in order for revolution to succeed there must be consent by the people, especially by the people controling the food source.

And yes, I do believe Lenin had the right intentions, and the NEP allowed for a massive shockresistor while culture was being transitioned. However after his death the appropriate steps were not taken due to the power struggles and lack of direction in the politburo, ultimately allowing people to get too comfortable and setting the foundations for Stalins slave regime.



Serbia Strong said:


> When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty. However, countries that focus on a healthy market system rather than a Command/communist system tend to see less people going hungry each night. Nothing will change the fact that there will be those in poverty, and eliminating complete poverty is a Utopia.


I would agree in regards to real world examples, but there are no real world examples of real communism, and I believe the times of revolution for places like China were premature, and in their country famine came about through their own encouragement of mass reproduction, which caused the overpopulation we see today. Had they allowed for better research before expanding their population (and actually properly distributing the produce), it probably could have worked.

Yes, there would still be poverty, but there would be far less under a redistributionary system, especially today where food is in excess.



> Community farming does not work on a large scale, nor does it deliver a large enough crop yield compared to the huge industrial farms. There is a reason why huge corporate farms took over the place of small community holdings. Bingo, they usually deliver a larger crop yield.



Here you seem to be confusing capitalism with industrialism. a socialist and communist society can also industrialise, market forces do not need to be at play to allow for industrialism to take place, only access to resources and technology truly influence how much a country can industrialise.



> If you want to attempt community farming on a large scale, the 1920s-1980s kinda proved that it does not work on providing a large yield and surplus.



Xolani already touched on this, what it would do is relieve some pressure on industrial farms, especially considering agriculture and cattle farming are also the major causes of deforestation.


----------



## Aetius (May 8, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Well there were two main reasons for this:
> 
> 1) The farming regions were communal, based on trade, they had no interest in the affairs outside of their isolated communes. Leading on from that...
> 2) They did not consent to communism, or rather, "communism".
> ...


The problem with collective/communal farming is that not all workers will consent to it and many of them will not choose to only produce "To their needs". Some are going want to create a surplus to make some extra bucks. What will you do if these farmers will not become communal on a large scale, and refuse to?  Kinda defeats the purpose of creating a large scale communal farming plan if so many farmers may be unwilling to accept it. 



Grimfang999 said:


> I would agree in regards to real world examples, but there are no real world examples of real communism, and I believe the times of revolution for places like China were premature, and in their country famine came about through their own encouragement of mass reproduction, which caused the overpopulation we see today. Had they allowed for better research before expanding their population (and actually properly distributing the produce), it probably could have worked.
> 
> Yes, there would still be poverty, but there would be far less under a redistributionary system, especially today where food is in excess.



I would rather put my faith in an economic system that (Somewhat) works. Communism on a large, international scale is really nothing that can be ever achieved through consent (Human error mostly). The tragedy of the commons is one thing that I may not like about the market system, on of the errors that the system faces. But the market system has proved itself through history. 



Grimfang999 said:


> Here you seem to be confusing capitalism with industrialism. a socialist and communist society can also industrialise, market forces do not need to be at play to allow for industrialism to take place, only access to resources and technology truly influence how much a country can industrialise.



The problem with industrialization under communist countries took place under central planning, a rather terrible economic alternative to the market system. This is the case, because practice has shown that the Govt cannot predict future consumer behavior in regards to creating future output for the citizenry. 



Grimfang999 said:


> Xolani already touched on this, what it would do is relieve some pressure on industrial farms, especially considering agriculture and cattle farming are also the major causes of deforestation.



The tragedy of the commons is a shame, and can be one considered one of the few negative effects of a market system.


----------



## ADF (May 8, 2013)

Food quality is going to become more of an issue in the future than quantity. You cannot intensively farm the same piece of land year in year out and expect the food it produces to be full of the vitamins and minerals your body needs. 

Petroleum based NPK fertilisers will make dead soil produce a crop, but that crop is nutritionally inferior to what we were eating 50 years ago. Commercial farming produces more weight in food, but not more nutrition. This is going to become an increasing problem in the future as factory farmed land produces increasingly nutritionally depleted crops. GMOs apparently only make these problems even worse; as apparently drowning plants in RoundUp isn't good for them...

Lower intensity, more quality focused farming is going to become necessary going into the future. The alternative of staying the course won't keep the world from going hungry, it will just mean they'll die of nutrition related diseases with a full stomach.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 8, 2013)

ADF said:


> Food quality is going to become more of an issue in the future than quantity. You cannot intensively farm the same piece of land year in year out and expect the food it produces to be full of the vitamins and minerals your body needs.
> 
> Petroleum based NPK fertilisers will make dead soil produce a crop, but that crop is nutritionally inferior to what we were eating 50 years ago. Commercial farming produces more weight in food, but not more nutrition. This is going to become an increasing problem in the future as factory farmed land produces increasingly nutritionally depleted crops. GMOs apparently only make these problems even worse; as apparently drowning plants in RoundUp isn't good for them...
> 
> Lower intensity, more quality focused farming is going to become necessary going into the future. The alternative of staying the course won't keep the world from going hungry, it will just mean they'll die of nutrition related diseases with a full stomach.


Reminds me of my cousin in law, he's the world's biggest manchild and eats nothing but McDonalds.  Even though he's so big that you can use him as a floatation device he's malnourished.




Not to mention that the chemicals in fertilizer are bad for plankten when they inevitably reach the ocean so we're kind of double fucking ourselves.


----------



## ADF (May 8, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Reminds me of my cousin in law, he's the world's biggest manchild and eats nothing but McDonalds.  Even though he's so big that you can use him as a floatation device he's malnourished.
> 
> Not to mention that the chemicals in fertilizer are bad for plankten when they inevitably reach the ocean so we're kind of double fucking ourselves.



People forget or don't realise that most of the nutrients absorbed through plants roots have to be first digested by micro organisms. There is in fact types of fungi that have a symbiotic relationship with plant roots and help them absorb substantially more than the roots could on their own (e.g mycorrhizal fungi). If you wipe out the soils micro organisms by pumping it full of chemicals, you're substantially reducing the availability of naturally occurring nutrients in the soil to the plant. Some natural fertilisers that are not derived from petroleum like blood fish & bone can take three months to fully break down in the soil 'with' micro organisms, without them the nutrients are inaccessible to the plant.

So the plant is reliant almost entirely on water soluble fertilisers as feed, the NPK limited diet. Which is very much like raising the plant on McDonalds, it being able to grow but is seriously deficient in the full spectrum of minerals and trace elements that it needs to be healthy. Some fertilisers try to include trace elements, but again they're damaging the soils biology. That and it's very difficult to include the full spectrum in a commercially viable product, companies don't want to wait years for rock particles to break down into usable elements. 

Some fields are so damaged after Monsanto is done with them that nothing will grow there any more 'but' their GMOs... because the soil is saturated with glyphosate based herbicide (RoundUp); which only Monsanto GMO seeds are designed to tolerate. So there is a business practice that is actually destroying ground viable for crops in a malicious effort to monopolise the market.


----------



## captainbrant (May 8, 2013)

.


----------



## Azure (May 8, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Except you know, being able to understandthe stock markets, be a banker, stock-broker, politician and so forth.
> 
> It depends on what you want to do with your life. If you want to make money, well then its there. If you want to do something which will actually get something done which can help others however, unless you go into the field of political-economics it probably wont help.
> 
> Unless your point was all university degrees are useless. which depends on what you plan to do.


nah, the entire idea and the way economics is taught at the college level is useless. look at all that fancy shit stock brokers, bankers, and politicians are doing. does it look like the work of somebody who understands economics? MATH maybe, but ECONOMICS? what a crock.


----------



## Inciatus (May 9, 2013)

Xolani said:


> No, it introduces the inefficiency of encouraging farmers etc. to produce crops for profit (which usually ends up primarily in the hands of foreign investors, rather than the local economy, in cases like Liberia), rather than producing food for the local community.


Having a greater output for a same or lesser input would seem to indicate an increase in efficiency rather than a decrease.


			
				Xolani said:
			
		

> No, division of labour is the principle cause. Industrial farms also provide fewer jobs per unit of food produced, compared with community farming or even just small business farming. Hardly something you can call a victory in an economic climate like this.


That also means they produce more food per job. This means it can be cheaper, and more food can be produced. People like cheaper food and people like more food.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 9, 2013)

ADF said:


> People forget or don't realise that most of the nutrients absorbed through plants roots have to be first digested by micro organisms. There is in fact types of fungi that have a symbiotic relationship with plant roots and help them absorb substantially more than the roots could on their own (e.g mycorrhizal fungi). If you wipe out the soils micro organisms by pumping it full of chemicals, you're substantially reducing the availability of naturally occurring nutrients in the soil to the plant. Some natural fertilisers that are not derived from petroleum like blood fish & bone can take three months to fully break down in the soil 'with' micro organisms, without them the nutrients are inaccessible to the plant.
> 
> So the plant is reliant almost entirely on water soluble fertilisers as feed, the NPK limited diet. Which is very much like raising the plant on McDonalds, it being able to grow but is seriously deficient in the full spectrum of minerals and trace elements that it needs to be healthy. Some fertilisers try to include trace elements, but again they're damaging the soils biology. That and it's very difficult to include the full spectrum in a commercially viable product, companies don't want to wait years for rock particles to break down into usable elements.
> 
> Some fields are so damaged after Monsanto is done with them that nothing will grow there any more 'but' their GMOs... because the soil is saturated with glyphosate based herbicide (RoundUp); which only Monsanto GMO seeds are designed to tolerate. So there is a business practice that is actually destroying ground viable for crops in a malicious effort to monopolise the market.


So basically we're double fucking ourselves in the end?


----------



## ADF (May 9, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> So basically we're double fucking ourselves in the end?



We're basically shitting in our drinking water supply, yes.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 9, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> The problem with collective/communal farming is that not all workers will consent to it and many of them will not choose to only produce "To their needs". Some are going want to create a surplus to make some extra bucks. What will you do if these farmers will not become communal on a large scale, and refuse to?  Kinda defeats the purpose of creating a large scale communal farming plan if so many farmers may be unwilling to accept it.



Oh Im not saying it should be done. In many ways self-sufficiency is better. But "making some extra bucks" is a capitalist concept, why would there be money in a communist system? Its everyone working for each other.

However this is why its a theoretical system, it is a difficult process to achieve, thus why Im not a revolutionary, I believe in using socialism at first as a means to regulating capitalism through its own rules, and MAYBE phasing out capitalism when the government reaches a point of much better democracy where the people actually have a say (That should prevent them from restraining peoples rights or freedoms, leaving their only method being brute force, but whats a government without a consenting population?)



> I would rather put my faith in an economic system that (Somewhat) works. Communism on a large, international scale is really nothing that can be ever achieved through consent (Human error mostly). The tragedy of the commons is one thing that I may not like about the market system, on of the errors that the system faces. But the market system has proved itself through history.


You mean like that one time that lasted about 200 years where the streets of London were in a permanent smog, disease was rampant, people had to live in workhouses, and homelessness was rife? I think you should provide a specific example, Marx was a product of his time for a reason.



> The problem with industrialization under communist countries took place under central planning, a rather terrible economic alternative to the market system. This is the case, because practice has shown that the Govt cannot predict future consumer behavior in regards to creating future output for the citizenry.



The problem was not central planning but corrupted dictators taking control of the government, while accelerated by the fears of western countries invading them while they were unprepared. That was partially the motive for Stalins Five Year Plans, to force the USSRs industry to be able to compete at a level against the west in the event of an invasion. Industry there wasnt successful due to the force put onto the people to follow it and the work conditions were horrendous. For China, well I admit I do not have much experience with Chinese history, but their industry seems to be doing alright, though like Russa they are hardly communist.



> The tragedy of the commons is a shame, and can be one considered one of the few negative effects of a market system.



Personally would say there are more than a few things than just the tragedy of the commons, which in itself includes several massive problems (Finite resources, growing contribution of climate change, etc), and those will only contribute to even more problems.

Other problems include:
-Increasing stress or depression related illnesses and deaths within western societies
-Increasing divorce rates (As shown through Indias divorce rates rapidly increasing in relation to its industrialisation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12094360)
-Increasing individualism (Causing greater isolation and also disregard for others)
-Greater obesity rates
-Ecological destruction and extinction of species (Although this isnt as important for some)
--This can be split into two catagories, those being overconsumed such as fish, or those recieving collateral damage such as the many unknown species within the rainforests being deforested for cattle ranching.
-Increasing relative poverty (Although in fairness absolute poverty is supposedly decreasing)
-High barriers to entry for small businesses.

These are just things off the top of my head, and things which are happening under a *REGULATED* market system. Lets take away the monopoly and minimum wage regulations for a moment. We will likely get:

-Increased "tragedy of the commons"
-Lack of minimum wage laws would allow for greater exploitation of wages (coupled with clever methods of hiding such)
-Monopolisation or at the very least small oligopolies which would have two key effects:
1) Extremely high barriers to entry, nearly completely disallowing small businesses to even start cometing, considering how most small businesses start off aided by the government
2) Economic power leading to political power in the hands of a few companies. If governments are (even more) useless in this theoretical universe, laws are decided by the markets and with their monetary power they can pretty much do anything, bribing the authorities, hiring personal armies (Such happened with the East India trading company), and pretty much have absolute control of the world. One can argue that they are still human at the end of the day so maybe they would still care for the people they hire? Unlikely, as they become intertwined in a seperate culture, where the interests of their workers are alien to them. It has happened too many times in history to even need to give an example.


I would hardly say there are a "few" problems with the market system. Im pretty sure there were many I didnt even touch on. Regardless, unless you have a good retort to these, it seems to me that capitalism does a lot of harm, especially when unregulated.


----------



## Inciatus (May 9, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> -Increasing stress or depression related illnesses and deaths within western societies


Those actually increased by quite a lot in "communist" countries as well.


> -Increasing divorce rates (As shown through Indias divorce rates rapidly increasing in relation to its industrialisation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12094360)


I don't see this to be relevant solely to capitalism


> -Increasing individualism (Causing greater isolation and also disregard for others)


I don't see this as bad.


> -Greater obesity rates


because having enough food to be overweight is terrible


> -Ecological destruction and extinction of species (Although this isnt as important for some)


That will happen in any case of industrialization regardless of system


> -High barriers to entry for small businesses.


There are no small businesses in your system so this point would seem irrelevant. Also there aren't really many barriers to making a small business.


> These are just things off the top of my head, and things which are happening under a *REGULATED* market system. Lets take away the monopoly and minimum wage regulations for a moment. We will likely get:
> 
> -Increased "tragedy of the commons"
> -Lack of minimum wage laws would allow for greater exploitation of wages (coupled with clever methods of hiding such)
> -Monopolisation or at the very least small oligopolies which would have two key effects:


There is a reason we have those certain regulations. If an industry in monopolized then the market system in that market, it can't function as it is supposed to.


> I would hardly say there are a "few" problems with the market system. Im pretty sure there were many I didnt even touch on. Regardless, unless you have a good retort to these, it seems to me that capitalism does a lot of harm, especially when unregulated.


Again, noone said it was a perfect system, and noone said it wouldn't do some harm, especially when unregulated. However quite a bit of the things we have today come as a result of capitalism and competing entities. One entity on its own can create something but when those two entities are fighting to survive they need to make their product better than the other so they get your money and survive. Also, capitalism provides a good way of telling us what products are successful and they provide a good method for the distribution of those goods. Many things would probably have still been made but they likely would not have taken off in the development as they did.


> considering how most small businesses start off aided by the government



There are funds available you can get (though for a lot of them you have to fit some sort of demographic) but a lot of small businesses don't get government support (at least here). About the closest thing you could say is that the government sometimes demands a certain percentage of a thing they are buying be made by small businesses.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 9, 2013)

> Those actually increased by quite a lot in "communist" countries as well.


But again I dont support "communism", "communism" sucks.



> I don't see this to be relevant solely to capitalism


It is again due to stress rates. The intense life required in a capitalist system (Needing the money, extensive work days, etc) causes heightened levels of stress and that causes domestic issues.


> I don't see this as bad.


In some ways individualism isnt. I personally think intelectually people should have their own minds and personallity, but then there is increasing social, economic and political individualism, the first causing isolation (which is harmful for a social species), the second increasing disregard for those worse off (For example not willing to give money to the homeless), and the third people dont even care about voting in the government yet complain when the government does things. I probably could be more elaborate with this but my brain isnt working at full capacity today.



> because having enough food to be overweight is terrible


I should have expanded on this. There are two main issues here, first is that there is greater obesity than malnutrition on the world (5% more), which shows we have excess food but terrible distribution, and the second is not a matter of access but health risks. Have massive access to food is good but then fatty and sugary foods are promoted more than healthier alternatives, which leads to obesity and diabetes, coupled with further health risks.



> That will happen in any case of industrialization regardless of system


Not to the same extent. Deforestation is primarilly the cause of ecological destruction, and a massive majority of that is for cattle ranching, which is where 60% of consumable grain is used, while our meat consumption is more than we need as well. It is due to there being many franchises being based on meat (Such as mcdonalds, burger king, etc) while most meals we have now contain meat, which has been promoted into our culture.



> There are no small businesses in your system so this point would seem irrelevant. Also there aren't really many barriers to making a small business.


I am discussing small business here to work within the same paradigm as capitalism. It is based upon and buts emphasis competition to allow for efficiency and consumer choice, but it evidentially works in the exact opposite way. Yes, In communism there isnt small business per se, but that isnt the point I was making.



> There is a reason we have those certain regulations. If an industry in monopolized then the market system in that market, it can't function as it is supposed to.
> Again, noone said it was a perfect system, and noone said it wouldn't do some harm, especially when unregulated. However quite a bit of the things we have today come as a result of capitalism and competing entities. One entity on its own can create something but when those two entities are fighting to survive they need to make their product better than the other so they get your money and survive. Also, capitalism provides a good way of telling us what products are successful and they provide a good method for the distribution of those goods. Many things would probably have still been made but they likely would not have taken off in the development as they did.


I know, however there are people that argue for unregulated capitalism, which is where it is dangerous. And to be fair I will admit capitalism is good for tchnological progress. I am not actually wholely against capitalism for that reason alone. However my point is there are better methods of distribution of goods than monetary, where many are left deprived through no fault of their own. It is why I believe that certain necessaities should be distributed by the government such as food health and education (Though the latter two usually are nowadays).


----------



## Aleu (May 9, 2013)

Why is it that people still think that more food eaten = obese person?

It's not how much food you've consumed, it's what you are consuming. If you consume only fatty foods YOU ARE GOING TO BE FAT. Not only that but severely malnourished.

This retarded idea that more food = more fat just shows how little people understand how food and the body works. It's what fucked up conservatives comment on obese people on welfare. "Oh they get enough food. CUT THE FOOD BENEFITS". NO, the only reason these people are obese is because they're limited to the cheap things which are *shock* FATTY.


----------



## ADF (May 9, 2013)

On the subject of ideology...

Defending capitalism has been difficult the last few years, because despite a better system not being available; the rampant destruction is indisputable. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, fraud is fraud. Investment bankers selling financial products they know with 100% certainty that they're going to blow up, as well as the insurance protecting against such a scenario doesn't work, is criminal. Yet none of them went to jail, they all got bonuses and partied with the money they extort out of the government by threatening financial Armageddon if they didn't hand it over. The whole financial services sector is indefensible, the means are irrelevant; all that matters is the profit and this has infected everything.

But this is all old news, so where am I going with this?

I came across a rather disturbing video today. Ignore Peter Schiff because what he's saying isn't new, what concerns me is the attitude of the other guy.

He's saying that he recognises that this is a false recovery for America. He recognises the Fed funny money is the only thing pumping up the markets, he's recognising that this is going to end in a colossal disaster. He just doesn't care. All that matters is that the numbers in the stock market are going up, the numbers in people's bank accounts are going up, therefore who gives a toss if all this is unsustainable and destructive? Who cares if the countries economy blows up tomorrow, there is money to be made today. We'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow... 

Printing money has destroyed every currency in history, but it's making them richer as of this particular moment; so who cares. Like who cares if the CDOs blows up? Or the credit default swaps? What matters is instant gratification in the form of quick profit, now it's someone else's problem... Have they really learned *nothing* since 2008? They couldn't care less what's going on in the real economy, the numbers in wall street are going up. So long as that continues the real economy can rot for all they care.

Regardless of political ideology, the system is broken to such an extreme extent that a disaster is inevitable. Money is so cheap that the economy is based on gambling on the stock market, with actual physical products and services taking the back seat. Even when the inevitable collapse comes you can be sure that someone will have arranged a bet to profit from the destruction. 

Is suicidal capitalism the new standard? Standing in a collapsing building and placing bets, last to die takes all...


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 9, 2013)

Ugh... yeah I think what we need, regardless of which system replaces it, even if its capitalism again, lets just leave the banks to commit Harakiri for their own sexual pleasure. Despite everything Ive said here, I dont hate capitalism if it is done right, I hate what it can become if it is unregulated and what it is right now. Unfortunately our governments are dumbfucks.


In fact, if you ever get the time, I recommend watching this.


----------



## ADF (May 9, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Ugh... yeah I think what we need, regardless of which system replaces it, even if its capitalism again, lets just leave the banks to commit Harakiri for their own sexual pleasure. Despite everything Ive said here, I dont hate capitalism if it is done right, I hate what it can become if it is unregulated and what it is right now. Unfortunately our governments are dumbfucks.
> 
> 
> In fact, if you ever get the time, I recommend watching this.



Sadly living in the UK we're in ground zero. When the banks finally do implode, we will feel it the most because our political class in their wisdom; decided to base most of the UK economy on financial services. Thatchers big bang... We are the global leader in financial fraud, most of the financial crimes in the world can be traced back to London. They've stuck all their eggs in the city, and you can see that when we're the only country in the whole of Europe who are fighting against the EU's new regulations and taxes on financial transactions. 

We're wholly owned by the banking system and are the worst positioned to weather any fallout in that sector... (will check vid tomorrow)


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 9, 2013)

You dont need to tell me about that man, Im British myself 

I really am not sure whose situation is worse, Americas or ours. But seeing how we have greater dependancy on the banking sector like you said, we are probably fucked. I would say our best solution would be to rebuild our secondary sector and weaken the pound so it is profitable to export again, get some fucking money in.

In fact you will probably enjoy the video, it is talking about that stuff, including the manipulation the banks are using to keep property prices overinflated.


----------



## Hydra (May 9, 2013)

Bailouts for bankers may ease the pain in the short-term, but a truly free market will always perform optimally when nobody is insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Just look at Iceland - they let their banks go broke. New banks took their place, the economy recovered, and a few years later they're recovering rather nicely and the rest of us are all back where we started hoping this doesn't turn into a viscous cycle. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9550667.stm


----------



## Aetius (May 10, 2013)

Hydra said:


> Bailouts for bankers may ease the pain in the short-term, but a truly free market will always perform optimally when nobody is insulated from the consequences of their decisions.  *Just look at Iceland - they let their banks go broke.*  New banks took their place, the economy recovered, and a few years later they're recovering rather nicely and the rest of us are all back where we started hoping this doesn't turn into a viscous cycle.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9550667.stm



Iceland could afford the loses because they were a small economy, the closure of the banks would have less of an impact as compared to banks that were intermingled with the entire world. 

The United States/UK/Germany/Any large economy would have much more terrible results if the Iceland incident was applied. Now, the size of the "bailouts" themselves are incredibly questionable.


----------



## CynicalCirno (May 10, 2013)

I hate democracy. I don't like having people whose opinions don't match mine in the same government, but... neither do them. It's probably the only thing that keeps freedom at bay, I guess.
As for the political test, "You are *a patriotic Social Democrat*. 3 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 70 percent are more extremist than you."


----------



## Mullerornis (May 11, 2013)

I'm a socialist through and through, though I don't think I belong in the established doctorines.


----------



## rhansen23 (May 12, 2013)

Im a OrdoLiberal I guess? never heard of that before. Anyway, less than 1% of testtakers are the same, and 87% are more extreme than I


----------



## ADF (May 12, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> Iceland could afford the loses because they were a small economy, the closure of the banks would have less of an impact as compared to banks that were intermingled with the entire world.
> 
> The United States/UK/Germany/Any large economy would have much more terrible results if the Iceland incident was applied. Now, the size of the "bailouts" themselves are incredibly questionable.



But there is the problem... If you don't allow banks to fail, they exploit it to the utmost extent and still cause significant damage to the economy with their state enabled plundering. Banks pretty much went on a criminal rampage we are still discovering the extent of today; because of their too big to fail status. Never mind the cannibalism of other areas to prop up the banks, such as pensions.

Were as if they are allowed to fail they are forced to be more sensible, because they don't have that safety net when their extremely leveraged bets go sour.


----------



## Aetius (May 12, 2013)

ADF said:


> But there is the problem... If you don't allow banks to fail, they exploit it to the utmost extent and still cause significant damage to the economy with their state enabled plundering. Banks pretty much went on a criminal rampage we are still discovering the extent of today; because of their too big to fail status. Never mind the cannibalism of other areas to prop up the banks, such as pensions.
> 
> Were as if they are allowed to fail they are forced to be more sensible, because they don't have that safety net when their extremely leveraged bets go sour.



Not letting banks fail =/= letting them run around in a lassize faire world. I never advocated leaving them unregulated, and if they did fail I doubt many of them would have time to think "huh, we gotta act cooler next time" when an economic depression is tearing apart a large country.


----------



## ADF (May 12, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> Not letting banks fail =/= letting them run around in a lassize faire world. I never advocated leaving them unregulated, and if they did fail I doubt many of them would have time to think "huh, we gotta act cooler next time" when an economic depression is tearing apart a large country.



You cannot regulate banks while they have their too big to fail status. Robo signing foreclosure documents, Libor interest rate fraud, laundering Mexican drug money. All of these the banks have been caught doing and no one went to jail and the fines were less than the profits made breaking the law. If the fine for robbing a bank was 3% of the loot, there would be lines going down the street. And there is! Banks are on a criminal rampage because they know they can get away with it.

If you're terrified of causing another banking crisis, then there is nothing you can do to regulate them. Not even being nationalised stopped the banks from breaking the law, because they know the government and regulators are toothless. Without risk capitalism is just looting and all the regulations in the world won't change that.

"Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws"

- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild


----------



## Ricky (May 12, 2013)

People who hate capitalism are usually the ones who don't like working real hard...


----------



## Aetius (May 12, 2013)

ADF said:


> You cannot regulate banks while they have their too big to fail status. Robo signing foreclosure documents, Libor interest rate fraud, laundering Mexican drug money. All of these the banks have been caught doing and no one went to jail and the fines were less than the profits made breaking the law. If the fine for robbing a bank was 3% of the loot, there would be lines going down the street. And there is! Banks are on a criminal rampage because they know they can get away with it.
> 
> If you're terrified of causing another banking crisis, then there is nothing you can do to regulate them. Not even being nationalised stopped the banks from breaking the law, because they know the government and regulators are toothless. Without risk capitalism is just looting and all the regulations in the world won't change that.



Yes you can regulate them with keeping them alive, the current Obama administration is just dropping the ball constantly. Just leaving the banks to die is going to FUCK UP the economic situation terribly, and regulating the banks is a greater alternative as you would still have the banks but on a tighter string. The current Obama administration has shown itself to become very craven when dealing with banks and needs to find its balls to regulate them. Yes, regulations work, if they are adequately enforced and with the right amount of transparency, history has shown this to be the case. 

Going back to Iceland dealing with banks compared to how a large country like the USA/UK/Germany/Hong Kong should deal with it, if one took an Intermediate Macroeconomics class they would know that comparing small countries to large countries is like comparing apples and oranges. What you do for a small country may not necessarily or not even work for a large country. 



ADF said:


> "Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws"
> 
> - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild


Rothschilds?

Okay, I know where this is going. For the sake of my sanity I'm done here.


----------



## Duality Jack (May 12, 2013)

I personally think that government should be as pragmatic as possible and leave morality out of it. 
"Govern to solve issues of man, not to change the views of man"


----------



## ADF (May 12, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> Yes you can regulate them with keeping them alive, the current Obama administration is just dropping the ball constantly. Just leaving the banks to die is going to FUCK UP the economic situation terribly, and regulating the banks is a greater alternative as you would still have the banks but on a tighter string. The current Obama administration has shown itself to become very craven when dealing with banks and needs to find its balls to regulate them. Yes, regulations work, if they are adequately enforced and with the right amount of transparency, history has shown this to be the case.
> 
> Going back to Iceland dealing with banks compared to how a large country like the USA/UK/Germany/Hong Kong should deal with it, if one took an Intermediate Macroeconomics class they would know that comparing small countries to large countries is like comparing apples and oranges. What you do for a small country may not necessarily or not even work for a large country.



Regulations don't work if you remove risk as a factor... Why on Earth would a bank care about any regulations; when governments are willing to trash their own economies in a mad dash to ensure nothing bad ever happens to them? Countries are actually ganging up on each other to ensure the banks are looked after, just look at the Eurozone. If a country cannot print its people into poverty to ensure the banks losses are socialised, loans are force fed to the government to prop up their banking system. Greece is in a artificial great depression imposed on it by other eurozone members, the suicide rate is through the roof and people are living on 500 euros a month. All acceptable, so long as the banks *never* fail.

They transcend boarders, countries are cannibalising themselves to ensure the bankers never fail; and you think they care about *one* countries regulations?

There is a point were the damage caused by a crash of the banking system is a lessor of two evils.


----------



## Duality Jack (May 12, 2013)

ADF said:


> Regulations don't work if you remove risk as a factor... Why on Earth would a bank care about any regulations; when governments are willing to trash their own economies in a mad dash to ensure nothing bad ever happens to them? Countries are actually ganging up on each other to ensure the banks are looked after, just look at the Eurozone. If a country cannot print its people into poverty to ensure the banks losses are socialised, loans are force fed to the government to prop up their banking system. Greece is in a artificial great depression imposed on it by other eurozone members, the suicide rate is through the roof and people are living on 500 euros a month. All acceptable, so long as the banks *never* fail.
> 
> They transcend boarders, countries are cannibalising themselves to ensure the bankers never fail; and you think they care about *one* countries regulations?
> 
> There is a point were the damage caused by a crash of the banking system is a lessor of two evils.



Here is an idea. How about regulating banks so they must be NPOs.


----------



## ADF (May 12, 2013)

Mokushi said:


> Here is an idea. How about regulating banks so they must be NPOs.



Capitalism and none profit do not mix, capitalism cannot function without the profit incentive. Otherwise where is the motivation to provide goods and services the public need? If you did something silly like ruling a business cannot make a profit in your country, they'd just leave. Which is particularly problematic for the UK, given our political class in their infinite wisdom decided to make London the global centre for banking fraud... And if they left it would leave a giant gaping hole in our economy with little else to fill it. Which is why the UK is the only country in the whole of Europe lobbying against banking regulations, because we're pretty much owned by the banking system.

I'd argue we need to expand into different sectors greatly, but the political class don't particularly care what the peasants have to say. Which we saw the other day with Labour, LibDems and the Tories all arguing over how to prevent the public from having the referendum on Europe they've been demanding for many years. Then they wonder why UKIP got a quarter of the vote in the recent general election. Their usual tactic of screaming "clowns, loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" at anyone who remotely sympathises with UKIP isn't working as well as it used to, but that isn't stopping the BBC from still pushing that image of course.


----------



## Duality Jack (May 12, 2013)

ADF said:


> Capitalism and none profit do not mix, capitalism cannot function without the profit incentive. Otherwise where is the motivation to provide goods and services the public need? If you did something silly like ruling a business cannot make a profit in your country, they'd just leave. Which is particularly problematic for the UK, given our political class in their infinite wisdom decided to make London the global centre for banking fraud... And if they left it would leave a giant gaping hole in our economy with little else to fill it. Which is why the UK is the only country in the whole of Europe lobbying against banking regulations, because we're pretty much owned by the banking system.
> 
> I'd argue we need to expand into different sectors greatly, but the political class don't particularly care what the peasants have to say. Which we saw the other day with Labour, LibDems and the Tories all arguing over how to prevent the public from having the referendum on Europe they've been demanding for many years. Then they wonder why UKIP got a quarter of the vote in the recent general election. Their usual tactic of screaming "clowns, loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" at anyone who remotely sympathises with UKIP isn't working as well as it used to, but that isn't stopping the BBC from still pushing that image of course.


 First of all we are not in a capitalistic society, we are in a corporate society, Big difference. 

Secondly I'd simply argue that Capitalism or corpratism having full power on an economy is unstable due to creating bubbles which adore to pop. 

Thirdly Banks as a Non profit service simply alters where the money goes, less money on bank fees... more money to buying products. The idea is to make money-holders not a source of instability to compensate for the mistakes of other environments and reducing the average debt by reducing the profit in sending out loans, reducing interest.

Growth focused economies are bound to always fail simply because growth is never infinite. So the question is to how to make the growth as sustainable as possible.


----------



## ADF (May 12, 2013)

Mokushi said:


> First of all we are not in a capitalistic society, we are in a corporate society, Big difference.
> 
> Secondly I'd simply argue that Capitalism or corpratism having full power on an economy is unstable due to creating bubbles which adore to pop.
> 
> Thirdly Banks as a Non profit service simply alters where the money goes, less money on bank fees... more money to buying products. The idea is to make money-holders not a source of instability to compensate for the mistakes of other environments and reducing the average debt by reducing the profit in sending out loans, reducing interest.



If you regulate banks to become none profit organisations, you will have no banks. The government would have to create a nationalised banking service and they're hardly more trustworthy than the banks.

Being owned by the banking system, it's not something that will happen in the UK any time soon. In fact that last couple of banks the government re-privatized were all loss makers, the taxpayer yet again being forced to take a hit for the banking systems benefit.

If the political class weren't tools, there are several ways some control could be brought back to the banking system. 

The biggest would be to split up the investment and retail side of banking, so that the gambling side of banking cannot access people's bank deposits. Plus, and this is a biggie. When the investment banks bets blow up, people's deposits are safe. So the bank would be allowed to fail without taking down the entire monetary system. The other significant change would be to increase interest rates to sane levels, which would force banks to look to sound investments rather than using cheap money to make bets on the markets. This would cause some damage to the public in the form of mortgage defaults, but those mortgages were unsustainable in the first place. But the real beneficiary of super low interest rates is the biggest debtor of them all, government. Which is using them to lend itself money at record low rates, which they spend on god knows what; because the public aren't seeing any of it with all these cuts.



Mokushi said:


> Growth focused economies are bound to always fail simply because growth is never infinite. So the question is to how to make the growth as sustainable as possible.



Growth is an inevitability as the population increases. But the primary driver for the need of growth isn't population, it's our money from debt monetary system. Stop creating money as interest bearing debt and you eliminate a significant portion of the need for growth. Though it's easier said than done, it's a fight that has gone on for centuries. America was the most recent attempt to escape this system, but of course it got them in the end when the Fed was established.


----------



## Mullerornis (May 12, 2013)

Ricky said:


> People who hate capitalism are usually the ones who don't like working real hard...



Funny how I spend 70% of my time working, then.

Might as well say people who dislike socialism are petty sociopaths who care more about themselves than fixing the economy. Or retarded manchildren who only pick what's "edgy", without actually caring about what they want so long as it's "cool", except that they're too cowardly to accept actual edgy stuff like social darwinism.

Go cry me a river, bitch. Once you quit whining about your taxes, come and talk about economics.


----------



## Hydra (May 12, 2013)

Non-profit banks are called credit unions. Good ones are amazing. For the consumer, anyway.


----------



## ADF (May 13, 2013)

Hydra said:


> Non-profit banks are called credit unions.  Good ones are amazing.  For the consumer, anyway.



Credit unions were also bailed out, being a credit union doesn't make them any less likely to gamble with high risk assets like sub prime loans. That said while they're typically considered more legitimate than retail banks because they're owned by their members, in the case of the UK; we're too dependant on the retail banks to make such a shift.


----------



## JuliusBlitz (May 16, 2013)

Well said Kodsdu!


----------



## Inciatus (May 16, 2013)

JuliusBlitz said:


> Well said Kodsdu!


What was that in response to?


----------



## Digitalpotato (May 16, 2013)

I usually don't disclose my own political ideologies, simply because there's no way to debate it in a civil manner. (As this thread can even show.)


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 16, 2013)

Actually the debate has been pretty civil. Civil does not mean people agree with each other, it just means people argue but dont get violent or personal, which hasnt been the case as of yet.


----------

