Til the Last Drop
May 14, 2010
Likes Received:
Trophy Points:

Share This Page

Til the Last Drop

Well-Known Member

Past Donor
    1. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      The reason why the modern version for America must be nationalist capitalism vs classic liberalism, is because with classical liberalism the top's wealth was tied directly to the state, so they were the best to put in charge of the state. With the top's wealth now globalized, they have more incentives to hurt the state for the sake of their wealth. Labor is now the entity with more ties to national success, and they alone are the only ones to be trusted to protect the economic health of the nation.
    2. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      Aren't the Bush tax cuts still in? The bankruptcy "reform"? The estate "reform"? Outside of Obamacare, Obama has continued every Bush policy from FED appointments, to no child left behind, to the patriot act, to the wars, to the "stimulus", etc. And I highly doubt neocon progressives answer to health care wouldn't have been the same "make everyone buy insurance", regardless of their pseudo posturing. My God, republicans under Bush had the presidency, the house, the senate, and a right leaning SC, and yet, abortion stayed legal. And still people argue the 2 party bull(*)(*)(*)(*). My nation is filled with idiots.
    3. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      Fiat currency sustained because as it devalued our labor the state got more and more involved in the economy. One simply know history to see what I am saying. Free trade didn't become prevalent until the 90's, when Clinton signed the trade contract with China and NAFTA. The only two good times we had were the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble, both of which popped and caused more harm than good. If you took away all the young people on SS for bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims, unemployment, welfare, and easy to get college loans, plus did away with subsidies, grants, government contracts for the top, this nation would have 50% unemployment. The true results of fiat currency and free trade. They can't exist without the state, and that my friend, is not capitalism.
    4. homerjay_s
      Thanks for the concern...in the last two weeks I got married and my wife and I had our combined seventh child...plus getting ready for Christmas for seven kids and everything else, I haven't had much time for anything...
    5. lynx

      Thank you for the request, I am glad!
    6. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      I agree completely. However, in order to do this, you need to get the state out of the private sector, just as you are pulling the private sector out of the state. Because so many things are necessities these days, that weren't 100 years ago, do to our high standard of living and minimalist of requirements for one to be even looked at for a job, we need to establish a luxury vs necessity type system of economics, where necessities have public options, and luxury items or services can run free from government intervention altogether.
    7. clarkatticus
      Your analogy of religion in 1776 and money now is spot on, i never would have thought of it in that way. Being an athiest I try to avoid the subject as it tends to get in the way of rational thought. Your singing to the choir when it comes to free trade. In another time I was a libertarian (registered)-I blame that now on blunt head trauma recieved in youth. Until Bush I was able to see some redeeming qualities in some of the GOP platform but it has since degenerated into a B movie horror flick. Glad for your input, as arrogant as I am, you have given me much food for thought
    8. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      We are not trading for raw materials. We are trading for manufactured luxury items, designed and owned by American companies, that quite frankly, the majority of which the rest of the world would never even think of purchasing. We do not have a trade deficit with China, we have a trade deficit with our own elite.

      As for your last point, the only industry still under protectionism is ag. Agriculture is the only industry sustaining. That should tell anyone everything. Your subsidy "plan" is ludicrous, as businesses are not going under because of protectionism, they are going under for the lack there of. All the medium tier to start ups in anything outside of tech have been demolished, and a major thinning of the service sector is on its way. We all know who will be the only one left, and expect their prices to shoot through the roof. Just as globalists claimed would only happen under protectionism, the only difference is we get no jobs from it.

      Everyone can tell the middle class is shrinking, and year after year, the wealth becomes more concentrated. Godwin capitalists. Think they are doing the world a favor by having trillions stashed under a rock in the backyard. Why do you think everyone cries "the problem we face now is shrinking demand"? Because one rich guy, with a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of cash, doesn't buy 159 meals to make up for the middle class that use to eat at the local restaurant. What is demand? The unreal demand we possessed was the vibrant middle class. Manufacturing supplied a ton of those middle class. Not just the managers at the plants, nor the average workers whose pay was higher by about 50% over service, but all the commercial independents who owned their own small business, employing millions collectively while affording a middle class to upper middle class lifestyle themselves, whose enterprises all collapsed when the lifeblood of their town's commerce, the plants, were shutdown.

      There are only two options. Globalists seriously underestimated the ripple effect free trade and outsourcing would have, or they simply didn't care, knew it would destroy America's national market, but the personal gains that would be made were worth it.

      Either way, their platform should be stripped from leadership. The latter should be a capital punishment offense.
    9. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      It is a false belief system. In order to push free trade, you must argue nations are no longer relevant. However, in order to argue "infant industries" of developing nations should be protected, you must acknowledge the existence of nations. There are "infant industries" in developed nations. These industries are all but destroyed by free trade, in effect free trade destroys competition within a developed nation, guaranteeing no new companies can compete with established big money, in effect, a violation of anti-trust. It is the equivalent of saying Idaho should be allowed to practice protectionism since it isn't as industrialized as California, when there could be an infant industry in California that doesn't deserve to have its future compromised for the sake of some supreme dictate. Such things negate the whole purpose of free trade to begin with. Not to mention, capitalism is the protection of an individuals right to reap the rewards of their hard work. The whole "infant industries" concept is basically saying developed nations as a whole should have their progress stifled for the benefit of underdeveloped nations, which is the antithesis of capitalism. Globalism is nothing more than super socialism, and the fact that America's top brackets are making record gains doesn't change that fact. Capitalism is a system for all, from the bottom to the top, with both switching places as often as the market dictated it was necessary. Surely no one would describe the current economic climate as anything more than all out global oligarchy.
    10. homerjay_s
      /Just read the message from 8/26. Right on! Great analogy between church and state and wealth and it's influence upon government. It truly captures the essence of what our current situation really is. Instead of theocracy, we have a corporate oligarchy that is relentless in it's stranglehold on control and influence.
    11. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      This is where the problem lies. When our forefathers created the American system, it was the church who was the major contributor to corruption. Kings are ordained by God. Money wasn't as relative to power as title, the crown, or a pulpit. They exhausted themselves to make money king, as in those times money, from capitalism, was end all proof to someones efforts and worth. Now is the time to create a document, that while protecting an individuals right to make money, like the old still protected the right to believe in a higher power, money, like someone's belief, can have no say in politics whatsoever. The new stressed protection must be separation of money and state, like at one time was church and state.

      Wealth, Church and the State must all be separate entities for a nation to function with all represented. A bought state has lead to EVERY problem, that combined, has gotten us where we are at. People should forever be able to make as much money as they possibly can while not threatening the rule of competition. However, even the suggestion of money involved in someone's politics should leave their candidacy forever moot. Like if someone suggests people's religious beliefs will play a part in their politics.
    12. Carls
      I hope t o see you in different forum :)

    13. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      Very true. But you also must come to grips with the fact that the "capitalists" at the top are as much behind it as anyone. Contrary to popular belief, there are super wealthy in communist systems. Castro has billions. Middle class pay the majority of the taxes. Just like capitalists use middle class money in the form of farm subsidies to keep their food prices artificially high, they use the middle class taxes for welfare to keep unemployment artificially low. Without welfare, all those people would have to get a job. Add those on BS SS claims, the number goes through the roof. With everyone wanting a job, protectionism comes back over night or the greatest market the world has ever seen gets burnt to the ground overnight. Globalism/free trade/outsourcing is a cash cow unlike the uber wealthy have ever seen. The wealthy write legislation. The "socialism" that they have created is simply a way to tax the middle class to death, to pay for all the losses, while they keep all the rewards.
    14. Carls
    15. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      Quit looking at my page. Yes, you.
    16. Jack Ridley
      Jack Ridley
      I don't have anybody on ignore. I would revise your list if I were you, most of those people are jackasses, but even then they sometimes contribute, and I have no idea how Anikdote could have wronged you.
    17. Til the Last Drop
      Til the Last Drop
      Ignore List

      * Uncle Meat
      * Blanche Kaphalt
      * Whale
      * Anikdote
      * Awryly
      * Reiver
      * themostimproved
      * tksensei
      * Roy L
    18. Falena
      Off the top of my head I cant remember what thread that was TTLD. Ill try and remember for you. Either way it was a good post. I either learned something new from your post or you made me laugh.
    19. megaman
      Hello...Good Luck with your new job.
    20. bennyhill
      disagreeing is ok, but understand the others point of view is great. I take sides on issues that dont concern me directly eg abortion or racism, but Im not a selfish human being either.
    21. Jollee
      Anytime, glad your doing good... That's what is important!
    22. HillBilly
      Hello , my new friend... how are you making it on PF ?
    23. camp_steveo

  • Loading...
  • Loading...
  • About

    Country flag:
    State/region flag:
    us idaho
    Remember kids, thinking like Mao is your ass off without the laughing.


    Political correctness is nothing more than the participation of women in cultural discourse.
    The level of political correctness is 100% correlated to the percentage of women in politics, academia, entertainment, and business.
    They are 1 and the same.
    Leftist females are the black kings offering free boat rides.