Actually, Adam Smith wrote in the late 18th century. Relevance? If you infer he wrote about capitalism, you are wrong. That term wasn't coined until the 1800's (read 19th century).
Your ignorance is showing. There are more than two forms of economic theory. And variations within each theory. C*******m is a form of socialism, but socialism is not necessarily c*******m. Actually, it is you who is ignorant. I am an economist. I have a degree backing up my words. You? There are only two base types of economy. Free market (private ownership) and State ownership. All these other "theories" are merely various shades in between. C*******m is an extreme form of socialism. Neither is an economic theory, but rather a theory of governance. As no government form is completely removed from the economy, they do have influence over the economy.
What we have in the US, and have had for 80 years, is a hybrid. It is essentially c*******m but with an element of state control. You are completely full of s**t. What we have had in America is a free market that is gradually being converted into government ownership. A free market is a capitalist market. A free market that is being converted to a state market is crony capitalism, where the capitalists are in bed with the politicians. With the recent bailouts, we are entering into a state market, the state then dictates what may be bought and sold...just as Obama did with GM. Pure capitalist theory never envisioned huge powerful businesses which could form monopolies or oligopolies, and be more powerful than many states on earth. Once again you confuse the terms pure capitalist with free market. Pure capitalism is a free market. In a free market with a government policy of laissez faire,the market regulates itself. The belief is that everything will stabilize with the most efficient producers controlling production, and the least efficient producers leaving the market. The size of these producers and the consequence of their size is not deemed relevant. This can an does lead to problems as it doesn't take into consideration corruption. These businesses have abused the system to such an extent, that regulation has been necessary, and the first regulations actually date back to the late 19th century, as you pointed out. It is the existence of corruption (which is a human trait, and not limited to a political view) that makes a pure free market impossible to achieve. It is for that reason that governments must create a minimum framework of regulations to reduce the effects of corruption. However, even that fails in the long run as it often leads to cronyism where the politicians make laws favoring some businesses, and penalize others. laissez faire is allowing businesses to run rampant. No, laissez faire is the government intervenes in the market as little as necessary. Laws needed to be passed, and still need to be passed, to reign in unbridled capitalism. Wrong! There is an over abundance of laws on the books. The problem isn't the need for more laws; it's the need for the existing laws to be enforced. Additionally, many of the laws are bad laws. They were designed to unfairly influence the market environment (cronyism) by granting provisions of protection or preferred treatment to some businesses while penalizing others. At any rate, what you want to get rid of isn't "unbridaled capitalism"; it's crony capitalism.
You cannot regulate bad behavior I'm the first to say this, so don't be trying to take credit for it. (by the way, how's the war on drugs working for you?), Fallacy! This is a straw man argument, and a red herring. You are attempting to attribute this to me even though I have never said anything on the topic. For the record, it is not MY war on drugs. I'm completely against it, just as I am against all forms of prohibition. I AM for regulating it in much the same manner as we presently regulate alcohol...particularly where drinking and driving or other disorderly behavior is involved. but you need to try. No, you don't. Let people do their bad behavior, and then hold them accountable to it. You break the law, you get the full measure of the law weighed against you. It's that simple. Once again we are at the enforcement of existing laws argument. Just because people murder other people is no reason to make murder legal. Um, duh. No one rational would ever say that it should be made legal. Having it illegal does not stop it, but it minimizes it. I doubt it. Knowing the likelihood of getting caught has more to do with the frequency of murder. The same is true for business regulation. Business regulation is not the same thing as murder. Fallacy, false analogy. When business regulations were in effect in the beef industry, people could eat at restaurants without fear of getting very sick, and possibly dying, from eating the food. Fallacy, cause and effect. People can also get ill from improper food pr********n at the restaurant, or due to malicious behavior of restaurant employees. De-regulation has permitted the abuses to grow. Fallacy, false assumption. Deregulation also can have good benefits when done properly. Can you make all food absolutely safe? Of course not. However, that does not mean you do not try. Agreed. It is necessary to assure that every reasonable effort is made to assure food safety.
For years, since the lesson of the first great depression, Oh? What lessons was that? banks and savings&loans were regulated as to how much risk they were permitted to take. As a result, from the 1930s until the 1970s, the banking industry was solid and safe, and the FDIC/FSLIC did not have a lot to do. However, deregulating these industries permitted those in charge to treat them like legal gambling casinos. Actually, that's not true. All deregulation did was expose an underlying problem that was created by other regulations. This was the banking equivalent of ripping off a scab. Deregulation only allowed the problem to be discovered earlier than pre-deregulation rules would have exposed. This is why I keep saying enlightened regulation/deregulation. The effects of a regulation need to be studied before a law is passed allowing their implementation. Does any banking come with risk? Of course. I'm thinking of a word. Duh! That's it. However, most regulation is designed to protect the banker, not the customer. Sure there's the FDIC, but what happens if the government can't guarantee protection? We are perilously close to that reality right now. If our government doesn't reverse its spending trend, then there won't be enough money in the world to cover our debt, let alone guarantee the FDIC. But that does not mean that you become the norm rather than the exception. This statement does not make any sense. Thanks to deregulation in the 1980s, people do not even know what savings&loans were. Is there a point here? I'm not seeing it. These are evils which individuals cannot monitor. What evils? So far this seems like random rambling. The only entity with the power and resources to do so is the government, for good bad or indifferent. To do what? You make no sense. There is no logical thought or argument here. That does not mean all regulation or government involvement is good. How does this relate to the above, disjoint statements? I happen to agree with you about the bailout, and did at the time. In fact, I will go a step further. Thanks to the courts, GM was permitted to continue as a going concern, while its owners were disenfranchised. Not only that, but the unions were given ownership of GM (in part) as well. Can you say cronyism? Many of these owners tried for decades to bring about reforms in company practice. However, the way corporations are usually run, only those with huge interests, such as mutual funds, can effectively make changes. So, when GM was permitted to continue, the directors who created the mess kept their private jets, obscene compensation, and their golden parachutes, while the owners, who theoretically should be making the decisions, were victims of a taking. True. And that didn't stop after the bailouts. In short, the bailouts didn't work. I warned against them. (Yes, I actually wrote my representatives telling them not to do it.) The results of the bailouts are exactly as I predicted they would be. You can't cure corruption by throwing money at it. That only spreads the corruption. I personally believe that sometimes the best decision is to do nothing. That's true in this case. I also believe that there is no such thing as "too big to fail". Our government is on the precipice, and is about to fail. The moment it defaults on our debt, we are fallen. How is that for too big to fail? Failure is nature's way of making corrections. We must be allowed to fail...just as much as we must be allowed to succeed. Attempts to regulate this will ultimately lead to failure.
Do I bandy about f*****m? Do I really? Yes, even if you don't see it. You and your tea party adherents My tea party? I'm not a tea party member. Where did you come to that fallacious conclusion? You really need to stop making false allogations and assumptions. do NOT want small government. They don't? How did you come to that (obviously) wrong conclusion? You are probably one of those liberals who think that their rallys were violent, despite evidence to the contrary. You want government as big as, if not bigger than, it is currently. Actually, I want government like it was during the day of our founding fathers...as little as necessary. Stop inferring upon me desires that I do not own. It makes you look foolish. You do wish to change it goals, however. Instead of assisting those in need, you would outlaw a******n, Yes, because a******n is murder. It is a violation of our founding documents tenets that all people have the right to life. This is the most fundamental right that no one has a right to dictate. birth control, I see nothing wrong with birth control. bring private religion into the public sphere. Where is it said that religion is private? (The answer is: nowhere.) The majority of our founding fathers were Christian. The whole purpose of "free exercise thereof" has to do with the fact that Christians are charged to share the good news of salvation through Yeshua, which is a decidedly public thing to do. Furthermore, this is reinforced by freedom of speech. No, there is nothing private about religion. It is very public indeed. Don't bother bringing up separation of Church and State. That is not in the Constitution. The only basis that it has at all is that the Constitution forbade the declaration of a national religion. This was to prevent religious persecution, which our forefathers fled Europe for the new world to escape. You would outlaw science if it conflicts with your beliefs. I also have a degree in computer science. As such I am also a scientist. Why would I do such a thing? Once again you falsely assert that I hold a view which isn't mine. You do it in the name of your beliefs. No, I don't. You are ENTITLED to your own beliefs. Yes, I am. You are not entitled to make them public law. I agree. All laws made on a religious basis is a bad law. That's why prohibition failed. That brings up another point. You better watch out for Islam. In every country where they get a sufficient toehold, they invariably call for sharia law to be implemented in that country. Just look to Europe if you want to see current examples of what I am talking. But 'social conservatism' is out and out f*****m. That is your opinion, and you have yet to provide even a single shred of evidence to back it. If you had your way, we would be the United Christian States Of America, essentially making all who disagree with you second class citizens. While this country WAS founded on Christian principles, the Constitution was created such that what you say should be impossible to occur. Furthermore, the majority of Christians are not even trying to make such a thing happen. There's a word for your fixation on this topic: paranoia. I call that f*****m. Once again, what you call f*****m, and the actual definition of f*****m do not agree. And before you go off the deep end We're not even ankle deep yet. (I know, too late) about our founding fathers, they left behind ample evidence that they did not want religion to be a part of the state. Oh? What evidence is that? The only documents I ever read only said that the government was not to interfere with the church, and that there would be no national religion. They saw the 1800 years of abuse combining church and state did to 'the old world,' and wished to save us from such abuses. This is true, though your interpretation is wrong. They were not unanimous, as I say, Patrick Henry is undoubtedly your hero. There you go making unfounded assertions again. If anyone, I relate to Benjamin Franklin, but I am nothing of the ladies man he was. But most of the founding fathers wanted religion kept private. Untrue. There is no evidence for this. They did want it to be an individual's choice, however, but that is not the same thing as private. They wanted all beliefs protected, and kept away from the state. Not away from, but rather out of control of the state. Prohibition and the war on drugs are perfect examples of peoples of your ilk trying to force the rest of us to adapt your narrow and intolerant version of morality. There you go again. "People of your ilk." You don't know me, and you make false assumptions of me continually. You exhibit a perfect example of the modern liberal, you can't win your arguments on facts, so you resort to personal attacks and bullying to win your argument. I'm game. I can defend myself. Bring it on. F*****t definition of the pursuit of happiness is all of you having happiness by stopping others from enjoying their rights. Once again, you using the term f*****t incorrectly, not to mention the whole falsehood of your statement. I'm beginning to believe that you are a serial liar.
And don't even start with 'right-to-life.' Too late. Just discussed it earlier. That is the most cynical lie there is in the public domain. That everyone has a right to life? That's not a lie. It's one of the highest ideals of this nation. We are endowed by our creator life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A******n is the lie, for it would deny life to the innocent. You would execute everyone accused of a capital crime (and would like to increase the crimes under this definition), When have I ever said this? The answer is: never. That would once again make you a liar. whether or not they have valid legal representation, whether or not there is evidence to the contrary, indeed, you would k**l in cold blood someone whose attorney missed a technical deadline. Once again, liar, liar, pants on fire! You do not even care if the accused is innocent or guilty. Lies. This is right to life? You are seriously off base here. I'm seriously thinking you are mentally unbalanced. You do not want to help women who become pregnant, you do not want to provide them with prenatal care, you do not wish to assist the single mother family after the child is born. You do not care if he is educated or given any kind of chance in life. Damn lies. Who died and made you my spokes person? Once he is born, he is 'fair game.' And, when you want him k**led, you k**l him. Hmm, that sounds like a very serious case for libel. I have never k**led, nor wish k**led, anyone. So, once again, you are simply a liar. That is the most insidious and disingenuous, and dishonest use of 'right to life' there is. Your propensity to create these bizarre fabrications is simply fascinating. Surely one could get a doctorate by studying what's wrong with you. What you narrow minded theocratic f*****ts are REALLY saying is, 'don't have fun. If you have fun, pay the consequences. You shouldn't do it. So, you and your child can just live with your mistake.' Some example of morality. There is no example here. This entire paragraph is a complete work of fiction. Furthermore, I truly am worried about the state of your mental health. I'm beginning to think that you go way beyond delusional. You speak of a fantasy land as though it were real. You place me involuntarily into this world and ascribe to me attributes that simply don't exist, and you try to convince us that it is true. No, this goes way beyond delusional.
I do not accuse you of having a delusional mind. I accuse you of having a heartless, soulless, conscienceless mind. That's the difference between you and I. I do accuse you of having a delusional mind. Only a person who is delusional attributes another person as saying something they never said, or for believing something they never talked about. You have done nothing but tell me how I believe since you first started writing on this forum. Almost none of it is true, just as saying I'm heartless, soulless, and conscienceless is completely untrue. You are a peddler of lies. You are so convinced of the t***h of your lies, how can you be anything but delusional?
It is NOT necessary for a corporation to be treated as an individual. Actually, there are many reasons that a corporation be treated as an individual. However, that does not mean that it should share the same rights as an actual individual. There is no reason why a corporation, which huge resources, should be permitted to purchase e******ns. Nor, for that matter, should an individual be able to purchase an e******n. There is no reason why such a corporation should be considered the same as a human being when there is a question of rights being negated. That's true. Corporate rights should not supersede individual rights.
And as for protecting rights because of 'abandon,' I have never used drugs. This statement makes no sense. Please clarify your meaning. I think they are hugely corrosive to society. Anything used improperly can have a negative outcome, but it is not for society to tell the individual how to live their life. All society can do is hold an individual responsible for the consequences of their actions. Drug abuse is a problem, but it is not society's problem unless a law is broken. However, if people want to use them, that should be their business, not yours. Have you ever noticed how you overly personalize this? You frequently make use of the word "you" inappropriately. You attribute to me many things that are unfounded and untrue. Perhaps you need psychiatric help? If not, then you need to take remedial English so that you know how to properly speak. People need to be called to account for their actions to others, not themselves. Ironically, we agree on many issues, but to hear you talk about it, we don't. Judgmental much? If you want to say committing a burglary calls for a five year sentence, and if it was to obtain drugs, a ten year sentence, that is fine with me. If you want to say someone using drugs abuses his family, again, make the DV DV? sentence worse. But if someone wants to curl up and abuse drugs, that is his business, so is his drinking, or smoking, or any other self-destructive action. Criminalize the criminal behavior, not the self-destructive behavior. I really don't understand what your problem is. At least on this particular topic, we largely agree. Seriously, you have issues.
And I feel very comfortable calling you a f*****t as long as you label those of the politically-coerced censorship crowd as liberal. And I call you f*****t for labeling them "the politically-coerced censorship crowd. Two can play the label game. Only one of us is right, and seeing how you have said pretty much nothing that is true, it's an easy bet that I am the one who is right. There is nothing liberal about them, and you are lying every time you call them that. Applying to them the label that they choose is not lying. Their self describing as liberals is a lie, but not calling them what they call themselves. Perhaps you need to read the definition of liberal. So far, I'm the only one who has been providing definitions. You seem to be incapable of figuring out how to do so for yourself based on your frequent tendency to misuse terms. I suspect that would be the case here. However, I have repeatedly stated that self-described liberals are anything but. So please stop agreeing with me. I will not waste time writing it, I suspect you are capable of reading it yourself. I am a liberal, and proud of it. No, you more closely resemble a progressive. You're too close minded to qualify as a classical liberal. Plus your serious disconnect with reality makes it clear that you are incapable of truly being liberal. You are not rational enough for it. The politically-coerced censorship crowd are as intolerant, Intolerant, just as you clearly demonstrate you are. inflexible, Inflexible, just as you clearly demonstrate that you are by self-righteously ascribing to me traits that simply are untrue. and unreasonable Unreasonable, this defines you most clearly. There has been nothing reasonable about anything you have said. Almost everything you have said is a lie. I keep hammering this point. The last thing you are even remotely is reasonable. To be reasonable, there has to be reason in you. But your repeated inability to say anything true is evidence enough that you are not a reasonable person. as the right wing. The fact that you attribute such strong feelings against the "right wing" is further proof that you are an unreasonable person. I actually consider them to be an alternative right wing. This statement makes no sense. To whom do you refer?
An American citizen has every right to deny G-d. I do not agree, and neither do you. They have the right to deny God, but that is between God and them. They will justly pay the price for their unbelief, but it will be at God's hands, not mine. But it is not a public issue, it is a private one. This is where we disagree. Religious belief need not necessarily be private. If you are truly Christian, then it cannot be private as we are commanded to share the good news.
As for censoring Christian statements, you are perfectly welcome to say wh**ever you like (at least for now). But you have NO RIGHT to force your beliefs on others. How can I possibly force my beliefs on others? It simply isn't possible. I can share my belief, but I cannot force THEM to believe. Want to pray? Go to church. Want to pray in public school, do it quietly, and leave those alone who do not agree. "Free exercise thereof", that simple statement is why you are wrong about prayer and religion. There is nothing saying you cannot pray/preach in public, nor that you have to do it in a specific place. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding prayer in public buildings. Once again, the only thing the Constitution states is that there will not be a national church/faith. PERIOD! It is fanatics such as yourself that prove the point that church and state need to be separate. I do not consider myself a fanatic. In fact, I am far from it. In fact, If I were truly a fanatic, I wouldn't inform you just how delusional you are. In that regard, I'm not being a very good witness, but I am tired of your obsessive and unt***hful abuse. Your behavior indicates that YOU are the one who is fanatical.
Actually, I doubt if you really know what the bible says. You believe in a literal interpretation as if the bible was written in English. The Hebrew bible was written in Hebrew, and some of the later writings were in Aramaic. The new testament was written in Greek and Latin. The old testament was t***slated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and Latin. From these sources, they were t***slated into English. You surely must be intelligent enough to know that things do not t***slate perfectly from one language to the next. You are a fool to claim anything with respect to my knowledge of the Bible. Let me educate you. I am a messianic believer. My congregation is comprised of Jews and Gentiles alike. My Rabbi (which simply means teacher), is a Jewish man who converted to belief in Yeshua over 30 years ago. Our services contain both English and Hebrew. So, I am well versed in the meanings of the words. I have several t***slations of the Bible. Some are literal t***slations, and others are t***slations that convey the actual meaning of the words as they were used when written. I use a Greek-Hebrew concordance to research meanings of words. So, I am well versed in what languages the Bible was written in. I do not claim personal knowledge of these languages, but I have access to experts who do. So do not presume to know what I know about the Bible. You will be wrong.
A perfect example: The sixth commandment. It is "Don't murder." It is NOT 'thou shalt not k**l.' Yes, I am aware of this. Another mist***slation is the 3rd Commandment. It is more correctly t***slated do not make (not take) the Lord's name vain/useless/of no worth. The idea here is not that you shouldn't speak the Lord's name. It is that you should not invoke his name and make it worthless. This is why when Joshua was decieved into swearing peace with the men from the nearby city under HaShem, he could not turn back on it despite the deception. The commandment is two words, don't murder. Murder and k**l are not the same. Did you know this? If you choose to take a literal interpretation of your bible as fact, that is your right. You have NO RIGHT to force the rest of us to accept it. There you go again...assuming facts not present.
I do not claim that people are perfect, any people. Not liberals, not right wingers, and not worshipers of politically-coerced censorship. All rich people live very well, be they Al Gore or televangelists. That has always been the case, and always will be the case. I would not remove wealth from the world. I would, however, hold those with huge amounts of it to account for helping their brothers and sisters. The only statement of worth in this entire paragraph is the last sentence. It is wrong to require of anyone something for the purpose of wealth redistribution. It is immoral. It is theft. It is a violation of the 8th Commandment.
Right wingers usually have no clue what poor people are like. Since you falsely like to lump me in to this category, let me enlighten you. My father was a minister of helps when I was a child. I helped him with his ministry often. I interacted with the poor of my community. In fact, my father placed everything we had in the ministry, so I can easily claim that I was poor. I do not. I use the Biblical definition of poor, and find that there are relatively few in this country who can make that claim. A poor person doesn't have more than the clothes on their back. A poor person has no guarantee of a roof over their head that night. A poor person cannot guarantee that they will eat a meal this day. When you apply this definition of poor, the majority of people in the US fail to qualify by a large measure. However, there are many people outside of Western culture that do fit that description, so if I appear to be indifferent to the imagined suffering of America's poor, that's because there is true suffering outside the US that needs to be addressed. Can they be greedy? Yes. Can they be 'entitled?' yes. They can be many things, but they are people. In my experience, many are, though I am unwilling to claim most. I was a probation officer for many years, and held every one of my charges to their court-ordered requirements. That did not prevent me from observing their conditions, and those of their children. The right wing does not know what is out there, and does not care. That is a false assumption. One, they are aware that they are out there. Two, they disagree with the left as to how much help if any they should be given. Three, they disagree on giving them carte blanche to obtain benefits. There needs to be a better system of verification of true need, and a clearly defined path for getting them off of the assistance. For example, for capitalism to work, there must be an element of unemployed people, or wages will be too high to sustain. Fallacy, cause and effect. In a free market (once again you misapply terms) people will always be coming and going. The assumption in free market theory is that they adequately get matched with a job when they enter the market. That is not how it actually works out. The problem with the market is that there is no uniform measure of sk**ls or how to apply them to jobs. What ends up happening is that a person from HR writes up a requirement of sk**ls for a job without understanding what sk**ls necessarily apply. They use them like buzz words, and think that everything should be based on the latest and greatest. As a result, they create a job description for a fictional employ with a set of sk**ls no individual is likely to have. Furthermore, even if there are qualified applicants, there's no guarantee that they will ever recieve notification of an available job. In short, the system is broken, but this has nothing to do with evil corporations or big government. It's just the inefficient way things are done. So, you would let these people starve because they cannot find employment? There are many private organizations that take care of the poor. They need not go hungry if they are willing to make use of the resources available to them. The government's involvement is unnecessary and wasteful. Private people can do a better job of taking care of the poor if the government would just get out of the way. And people who are injured, and whose work capability is limited, you would allow them to starve? Again, if the government would get out of the forced charity business, then the people would take over and people's needs will be met. It's not a perfect world, but the government largely makes things worse, not better. It was never meant to interfere in an individual's personal life.
I seem to recall a rally last year, by the Tea Party, in which a p**********l candidate asked if someone is dying, and has no insurance, should he be allowed to die? The response was cheering. This is morality? This is depraved. I would have to see the rally in question so that I can get a sense of the context. I cannot accept from you what amounts to an opinion.
Actually, Adam Smith wrote in the late 18th centur... (
show quote)