WHO OWNS WHAT AND HOW MUCH? If one does not like "capitalism", then what does anyone suggest to replace it? Time has shown aptly well that money is the best medium of exchange. Unless of course, you want to milk your cows and bring the "produce" to a central market to exchange it for chickens. (Not a good idea, is it? ;^) But that's the way it was before mankind invented "capitalism", that is the use of money as a means of exchange. (That's its essential meaning regardless of what it has come to mean in the common vernacular.) The point-of-debate is therefore not necessarily about "capitalism" - which is here to stay for a good long time. Capitalism is simply a "means of exchange" by using money-value instruments in which "capital" is the instrument necessary to provide the means of exchange (of goods and services). What must be decided is how best to manage capitalism in a market-economy. And therefore we should consider the fundamental meaning of both of those words: *Capitalism - Capitalism is an economic system in which the governments play either a primary or a secondary role. (Which is in heated debate her.) People running companies make most of the decisions, and own most of the property. That is, the means of production (of goods/services) are largely or entirely privately owned (by individuals or companies) and operated for profit. *Market-economy - an economic system in which production and prices are determined by unrestricted competition amongst/between privately or state-owned owned businesses. And, quite frankly, that is what we have today. So, the only question remaining is "What is the outcome for consumers who constitute Demand in a market-economy and (by means of a capitalist economy) the "private and public entities that provide the Supply of goods/services"? Which means both privately-owned (by means of shares) and publicly-owned entities (appropriated/created and run by governments). At present, most developed economies are constituted in the manner described above. The only question remaining, therefore, is "Who gets to own/run how much of either of the above "entities"? And what influence do they have on the market-economy? The question that the art of Economics (because calling it a "science" is highly debatable) must answer is "What are the best ways-and-means for a government to guarantee a FAIR & EQUITABLE economic mechanism assuring that GDP is administered equitably. And that question devolves to "Who owns how much of what and should they?"
its wrong question since in America we have natural right to our property. libNazi govt does not get to take our stuff at gun point to cause what they think is equitability.
There is no such thing as a "natural right to property", the government is not "libNazi" or any other nonsense term of partisan hate, and nobody wants to take anything that they should not take, and that is established by consensus. Sometimes extreme partisan indoctrination with propaganda substitutes for knowledge.
Our Capitalism was not regulated correctly from 1800 - 1933 and there were extreme violations of human rights by those that had money vs those that did not. Even then, it was better than many other places and thus people came. 1933 - 1983 FDR fixed it to an EXTREME and it went to far. The Tax went too high on the rich reaching 90% for the very Top earners. Most of the Regulations put in place were done so to help All the people. There were things that made no sense, the handouts, more kids you have, the more you get and so on. 1983 it all changes under Reagan. 1983 - Present Now they (the rich) don't pay nearly enough and have changes all those great regulations put in place to make us a prosperous nation. Reagan allowed the rich a one time temp. tax cut that Bush extended. At the same time we opened the flood gates allowing whoever want to come here the ability to do so. Come, dont go back and just stay and work. Force America to make you a citizen. Also we allowed any company that want to go to China that chance with NO tariff attached (give Americans cheaper goods, it is good for Americans) Conclusion: As plain and simple as all of this is, people love to throw rocks. Blame each other, hate on things. This is a Money problem and the Zionists have all the money, the Media, the FED, and all the politicians on both sides in their pockets. Arguing here is futile attempt and only makes you feel good because you got someone to listen to YOUR Argument... Amazing how relieving it is...
I'll trust the judgement of FDR and the Congress that passed his bills before I'll trust the judgement of a poster on a forum.
This above is an unacceptable entry in a Debate Forum. Yes, many Jews are rich people. A good many. But have you ever asked why? I did, and the answer astounded me. I frankly do not know when it began, but sometime during the evolution of Christianity as a major player politically in Europe, the Catholic Church pressed heavily one idea that was held near and dear to Rome. That jews should not own land. Of course, in the Agricultural Age not owning land effectively meant you could not grow crops and feed your family. So, as this story goes, the Jews migrated to cities (those migrating to Europe - and there were many) because Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim Moors. (Not all mind you migrated from the Middle-east, but a good many.) And what can you do in a large city? You become a shop-owner or a banker or a "financial advisor". And that is what many did to survive. The above is an "explanation" I heard a long time ago and for which I cannot find any corroborating historical evidence. (See presumption below.) But, it does make sense to me ... NB: From the The Jewish News: Jews and money: The stereotype, the history, the reality
sure there is, the first family who discovered a cave claimed it as their own and would kill those who tired to steal it. A dog has a bone and will fight to keep it once he has had possession of it. Possession is 9/10's of the law. Now do you understand the basics??
FDR was a total libcommie ignoramus illiterate who caused a 16 year Depression and world war that killed 60 million. His first act was to raise prices since the Depression had lowered them. It was beyond stupid but perfectly liberal !
there are a couple of reason: 1) they were literate long before most of humanity 2) they faced constant discrimination so had to be able to pick up and leave at a moments notice. This meant owning land was not a good idea.
then why is Israel surrounded on 3 sides by mortal enemies with 100's of 1000's of rockets aimed at them and no possible defense short of nuclear? Why is the BDS movement spreading?
oh?? when will Bernie and the others tell us what limits on govt they favor? So far as we know there is no limit short of Nazi. Why do you think Bernie honeymooned in Stalin's USSR? and DeBlasio in Castro's concentration camp island where boats are illegal?
got it; so the libNazis get to determine what the consensus is and therefore what they can take and what they cant. Too bad America is based on our natural right to freedom from libNazi govt's like the ones that just killed 120 million human souls!
Dear, the right to private property is at the heart of Western civilization, started in ancient Greece or before, and is foundational to our Declaration and Constitution. Imagine the extreme delusion that causes you see it as partisan and propagandistic while you support LibNazism even after it just killed 120 million human souls? Very very bizarre-right??
Between this and your FDR comment i dont know which one makes least sense. You dont have a GRASP, nor make any sense of History. FDR didnt start WWII, we rescued GB, and the rest from Germany, and Japan. Both which started the wars by taking others land and goods. That is a FACT. Israel is yes, surrounded by people who hate them and for a good reason. They are the only Nuclear power close by. But they are hated for their arrogance and Apartheid movements in the West Bank and Palestine. Why i am explaining to you is beyond me, you have not a clue to reality. Better stop watching FOX news or whatever Neoconservative right wing paid for program you are getting your news from. It is FALSE !
Obviously another paid shill from Cato, or Koch Brothers to post Propaganda for the right. I am not a liberal at all, but if I am not a neoconservative you would label me as such. That is how the right wing program you mind. Hate all that dont do what we tell them, call them names, baby killers, Jesus haters, and so on. That is Nazism ! When you use news, propaganda to control others. LIberal news or as you call it MSM is part of the Bank, FED, BIG business Zionists who control the world and thus all the MSM. They want you, a neocon arguing with the LIBS about things that are mostly irrelevant thus you dont see what they are doing with money and power. For 35 years they have inflated the dollar, shorted GOLD, taken all the money into wallstreet and you sir dont "GET IT"
If there is no natural right to property, then there is no natural right to the self, for what you argue is that which you produce can rightly belong to someone else without your consent. I would point out that there is no right to monopolize justice, yet you obey the authority of those monopolizers , even calling upon them to exercise that authority to command others to conform to your values. That authority is as nonexistent as natural rights, yet you believe in it.
If rights do not exist, from where did they obtain the rightful authority to force their rules on anyone?
Your conclusions about my statement doesn't follow. I didn't in any way argue that "what you produce can rightly belong to someone else without your consent."
Wrong attribution. That was Lafayette, not me. Oh, really? A natural right to property that consists of other people's rights to liberty??? That's the exact "logic" slave owners used against the abolitionists, son, so it's known in advance to be fallacious, with no further argumentation needed. So you think that slaves should not have been emancipated, because it violated their owners property rights. You think the property rights of owners have priority over the liberty rights of those whose rights to liberty property owners own..
And the poorest people in the US live better than the middle class in the rest of the world. Income disparity is simply class envy in the US.
Wow. You don't get out much, do you? You really think you have it so much better than the Brits, French, Italians, Danish, Finns, Norwegians, Swedish, and Swiss to name a few? LOL!!!!!!!! R I D I C U L O U S !!!!!
