The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[simplicity]

The Chinese model is called capitalism.

Well, yeah - you've called it that.

In order to avoid having to explain why it's kicking capitalism's ass in terms of wealth creation.

Now tell us about the state-sanctioned theft of intellectual property in China.
Tell us about the human rights abuses.
Tell us about the racketeering of foreign companies and protectionism of Chinese companies.

Yes, the system is not perfect [as a matter of fact, it's horribly corrupt at the moment], but that doesn't change the fact that there is only one economic system...capitalism. The rest take the profits generated from such and re-distribute. Are their vestiges of slavery and pseudo-feudalism going...of course, but the system that run global and national economies is capitalism.

[simplicity]

That's yet another blanket statement you've made that doesn't look very sustainable. Will you do anything to justify any of them at any point?

FIAT begins its failure the moment one unit of currency is counterfeited.

That's not failing by any standard other people would recognise, and you've already describe standard issuance of currency as "counterfeit".

The USD was worth more in 1900 then it was in 1800. After the FED was created in 1913 [in the dark of night, btw], the USD is now worth approx. 3 cents. Does that qualify as failure for you? And the dollar is the least dirty shirt in the laundry basket.

therefore you must have what I refer to as "real" money, that is, something that people cannot counterfeit [including central banks].

So ... bitcoin is "real" money then?

Crypto is real money if the society accepts it as such. Personally, it seems too good to be true but time will tell.

Good news, society accepts the US Dollar as real money. So you use real money every day and you don't need to change anything.

I agree that perhaps the biggest problem people have faced over the centuries is folks having their labor-value stolen by those who control the economic system. Man working towards a method that would compensate a worker for the amount of labor-value s/he produces [less overhead] should be a long-range goal of the species. Perhaps a couple of centuries down the road.

That's the Labour Theory of Value, you complete commie
After everything you've written, now you are chanelling Karl Marx.

Actually, I've read nearly the entire collected works of Marks and Engels. Marx was a brilliant economist but a really lousy sociologist and political scientist. What he did in the 1840's and 50's was truly remarkable. You should read some of his work if you have not.

His historical method had some merit, but economists tend to regard his economic theory to be behind the times on the day it was written, failing to account for the proportion of value that comes from design for instance even while that became ever more obvious.

So does that make Newton or Einstein idiots because eventually their theories will eventually be disproved? Cut the guy a break. WHat he figured out and when he figured it out is truly remarkable. Of course, some of his theories were BS, but so what? The guy was a f******* genius.

[simplicity]

Actually, the Chinese model is called slavery.

So the enormous Chinese middle and upper middle class are all slaves?

Considerin' what sits atop them all: yep.

Technically, you can refer to all loss of autonomy as slavery, e.g., wage-slavery.

[Belinda]

If someone takes someone else's rightful possessions by force then they should be made to give them back.

Much wealth in the UK comes from the Atlantic slave trade, and from slave economies such as Southern States of the US as were. Those of us in the UK who can pay back what is owed to the descendants of slaves, should be made to do so.

Let's suppose that's true. But here's a true fact: 100% of the slave owners were Democrats. The Republicans were in the industrial north, and fought to abolish slavery. They died doing it, in the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil.

So let's make the Democrats pay everybody for what they did. They've got lots of money: let's have it, then.

But that, too would be unjust. For whatever the ancient Democrats did, their children's children's children had no part in. Still, the Left would say we have to accuse them all of "systemic racism," and "historical guilt," and "white privilege," and "complicity in oppression." And we must forever bludgeon their innocent progeny, and make them feel horrible for the legacy of a slavery their great great grandparents caused, and in which they never could even participate at all.

From either side, Democrat or Republican, or just from common sense, that's just lunacy. But if anybody gets reparations, let it be the direct ancestors of the slaves themselves, and also the Republicans and northerners who defeated the Democrats and freed the slaves, and died in such huge numbers to do it.

I do agree it' s a complex situation of who deserves to be compensated, and by whom. The criterion I choose is the people who are still suffering from European violent theft, and the peoples who still profit from the violent thefts. Africans whose civilisations were destroyed by colonists form a large group who are still in dire need. Also African Americans who from what I read are in need of enrichment and augmented social status so they are not killed by policemen and vigilantes. Obviously the USA has profited from slave labour and so richer Americans and Europeans should be taxed to repair the injuries.

[Immanuel Can]

I do agree it' s a complex situation of who deserves to be compensated, and by whom.

It's not complex at all. A person is only responsible for what he or she actually had a choice about doing or not doing. Nobody alive today owned a slave. Nobody today set up the system or caused the CIvil War. The people responsible, other than, say, the Democrat governors of the '60s, if any of those old toads are still alive, are all dead.

Nobody today owes anybody a cent. That's the truth.

Africans whose civilisations were destroyed by colonists form a large group who are still in dire need.

That's their own fault, too. Don't treat Africans like infants: they are responsible adults, too.

The system of tribal violence that ruled in Africa long before colonialism has re-emerged after colonialism, and still causes all of Africa's political problems. Colonialism, for its part, had both bad aspects and some good -- though few people are ready to talk about any of the goods of colonialism. But in any case, colonialism was unwarranted and unnecessary, so we can leave it there.

Obviously the USA has profited from slave labour and so richer Americans and Europeans should be taxed to repair the injuries

.
No, they shouldn't. They had no part in all that. Nobody asked them if they wanted to be born where they are, and who they are. You don't get to be guilty by being born European or American. That's silly.

So long as you continue to think Africans have to be "helped by" reparations, the truth is that you're just supporting a colonial attitude. You're thinking, "Poor black folks...they need a handout, or they're just never going to get civilized. I can't blame them for anything they do...they're just children, victims, weak and helpless."

They are not. They are human adults.

They're responsible for themselves, and colonialism is a historical curiosity...unless you count the current colonization of Africa by the Chinese Communists, which is very much a live issue now. But I'll warrant most people would rather carp about the long-dead problem of colonialism from Europe or America than deal with a live and serious problem of actual colonialism today, like the Communists.

[Belinda]

I do agree it' s a complex situation of who deserves to be compensated, and by whom.

It's not complex at all. A person is only responsible for what he or she actually had a choice about doing or not doing. Nobody alive today owned a slave. Nobody today set up the system or caused the CIvil War. The people responsible, other than, say, the Democrat governors of the '60s, if any of those old toads are still alive, are all dead.

Nobody today owes anybody a cent. That's the truth.

Africans whose civilisations were destroyed by colonists form a large group who are still in dire need.

That's their own fault, too. Don't treat Africans like infants: they are responsible adults, too.

The system of tribal violence that ruled in Africa long before colonialism has re-emerged after colonialism, and still causes all of Africa's political problems. Colonialism, for its part, had both bad aspects and some good -- though few people are ready to talk about any of the goods of colonialism. But in any case, colonialism was unwarranted and unnecessary, so we can leave it there.

Obviously the USA has profited from slave labour and so richer Americans and Europeans should be taxed to repair the injuries

.
No, they shouldn't. They had no part in all that. Nobody asked them if they wanted to be born where they are, and who they are. You don't get to be guilty by being born European or American. That's silly.

So long as you continue to think Africans have to be "helped by" reparations, the truth is that you're just supporting a colonial attitude. You're thinking, "Poor black folks...they need a handout, or they're just never going to get civilized. I can't blame them for anything they do...they're just children, victims, weak and helpless."

They are not. They are human adults.

They're responsible for themselves, and colonialism is a historical curiosity...unless you count the current colonization of Africa by the Chinese Communists, which is very much a live issue now. But I'll warrant most people would rather carp about the long-dead problem of colonialism from Europe or America than deal with a live and serious problem of actual colonialism today, like the Communists.

Well off Americans and Europeans obviously had no part in all that slavery economics at the time as they were not alive at the time. But we are alive now and we are profiting from the capital prosperity that the slave economy, and the violent colonialism, provided in perpetuity.

[Immanuel Can]

I do agree it' s a complex situation of who deserves to be compensated, and by whom.

It's not complex at all. A person is only responsible for what he or she actually had a choice about doing or not doing. Nobody alive today owned a slave. Nobody today set up the system or caused the CIvil War. The people responsible, other than, say, the Democrat governors of the '60s, if any of those old toads are still alive, are all dead.

Nobody today owes anybody a cent. That's the truth.

Africans whose civilisations were destroyed by colonists form a large group who are still in dire need.

That's their own fault, too. Don't treat Africans like infants: they are responsible adults, too.

The system of tribal violence that ruled in Africa long before colonialism has re-emerged after colonialism, and still causes all of Africa's political problems. Colonialism, for its part, had both bad aspects and some good -- though few people are ready to talk about any of the goods of colonialism. But in any case, colonialism was unwarranted and unnecessary, so we can leave it there.

Obviously the USA has profited from slave labour and so richer Americans and Europeans should be taxed to repair the injuries

.
No, they shouldn't. They had no part in all that. Nobody asked them if they wanted to be born where they are, and who they are. You don't get to be guilty by being born European or American. That's silly.

So long as you continue to think Africans have to be "helped by" reparations, the truth is that you're just supporting a colonial attitude. You're thinking, "Poor black folks...they need a handout, or they're just never going to get civilized. I can't blame them for anything they do...they're just children, victims, weak and helpless."

They are not. They are human adults.

They're responsible for themselves, and colonialism is a historical curiosity...unless you count the current colonization of Africa by the Chinese Communists, which is very much a live issue now. But I'll warrant most people would rather carp about the long-dead problem of colonialism from Europe or America than deal with a live and serious problem of actual colonialism today, like the Communists.

Well off Americans and Europeans obviously had no part in all that slavery economics at the time as they were not alive at the time.

Well-off or poor makes no difference to this, and American or European, or Tamil or Yoruban makes no difference either. Whatever you are today, you were not alive when the nonsense of slavery or colonialism happened. The generations that did it, own it. End of story.

But we are alive now and we are profiting from the capital prosperity that the slave economy, and the violent colonialism, provided in perpetuity.

No, no...that's totally nonsense.

"The Southern Way of Life" is dead long ago, and was economically moribund even during the Civil War. Slavery actually turned out to be an economic dead end. It was the greater economic power of the industrial North that turned the tide of the war against the South. Industrialization, not cotton farming, became the source of American wealth. Slavery was done...it was only a matter of time, anyway.

There are enough bad things about how some wealth gets made, without us trying to blame 18th Century dead things.

[Age]

It's not complex at all. A person is only responsible for what he or she actually had a choice about doing or not doing. Nobody alive today owned a slave. Nobody today set up the system or caused the CIvil War. The people responsible, other than, say, the Democrat governors of the '60s, if any of those old toads are still alive, are all dead.

Nobody today owes anybody a cent. That's the truth.


That's their own fault, too. Don't treat Africans like infants: they are responsible adults, too.

The system of tribal violence that ruled in Africa long before colonialism has re-emerged after colonialism, and still causes all of Africa's political problems. Colonialism, for its part, had both bad aspects and some good -- though few people are ready to talk about any of the goods of colonialism. But in any case, colonialism was unwarranted and unnecessary, so we can leave it there.

.
No, they shouldn't. They had no part in all that. Nobody asked them if they wanted to be born where they are, and who they are. You don't get to be guilty by being born European or American. That's silly.

So long as you continue to think Africans have to be "helped by" reparations, the truth is that you're just supporting a colonial attitude. You're thinking, "Poor black folks...they need a handout, or they're just never going to get civilized. I can't blame them for anything they do...they're just children, victims, weak and helpless."

They are not. They are human adults.

They're responsible for themselves, and colonialism is a historical curiosity...unless you count the current colonization of Africa by the Chinese Communists, which is very much a live issue now. But I'll warrant most people would rather carp about the long-dead problem of colonialism from Europe or America than deal with a live and serious problem of actual colonialism today, like the Communists.

Well off Americans and Europeans obviously had no part in all that slavery economics at the time as they were not alive at the time.

Well-off or poor makes no difference to this, and American or European, or Tamil or Yoruban makes no difference either. Whatever you are today, you were not alive when the nonsense of slavery or colonialism happened. The generations that did it, own it. End of story.

But we are alive now and we are profiting from the capital prosperity that the slave economy, and the violent colonialism, provided in perpetuity.

No, no...that's totally nonsense.

"The Southern Way of Life" is dead long ago, and was economically moribund even during the Civil War. Slavery actually turned out to be an economic dead end. It was the greater economic power of the industrial North that turned the tide of the war against the South. Industrialization, not cotton farming, became the source of American wealth. Slavery was done...it was only a matter of time, anyway.

There are enough bad things about how some wealth gets made, without us trying to blame 18th Century dead things.

'you', "immanuel can", are about one of the biggest HYPOCRITES that I have ever observed.

And you are also about the FURTHEST from a True "christian" that I have witnessed as well.

Your CONTRADICTIONS could not be MORE BLATANT.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

A person is only responsible for what he or she actually had a choice about doing or not doing.

Mr Can believes that Jesus came to save us from the guilt of Eve.

[FlashDangerpants]

FIAT begins its failure the moment one unit of currency is counterfeited.

That's not failing by any standard other people would recognise, and you've already describe standard issuance of currency as "counterfeit".

The USD was worth more in 1900 then it was in 1800. After the FED was created in 1913 [in the dark of night, btw], the USD is now worth approx. 3 cents. Does that qualify as failure for you? And the dollar is the least dirty shirt in the laundry basket.

No, that qualifies as a mad old man who entirely misses the point. If you want an asset, use your dollars to buy one, because it's a currency.

A currency is successful if it supports a vibrant diversified economy without enormous price shocks, shortages of said currency and so on. It's dumb as all holy hell to call the US dollar a failure.

therefore you must have what I refer to as "real" money, that is, something that people cannot counterfeit [including central banks].

So ... bitcoin is "real" money then?

Crypto is real money if the society accepts it as such. Personally, it seems too good to be true but time will tell.

Good news, society accepts the US Dollar as real money. So you use real money every day and you don't need to change anything.

I agree that perhaps the biggest problem people have faced over the centuries is folks having their labor-value stolen by those who control the economic system. Man working towards a method that would compensate a worker for the amount of labor-value s/he produces [less overhead] should be a long-range goal of the species. Perhaps a couple of centuries down the road.

That's the Labour Theory of Value, you complete commie
After everything you've written, now you are chanelling Karl Marx.

Actually, I've read nearly the entire collected works of Marks and Engels. Marx was a brilliant economist but a really lousy sociologist and political scientist. What he did in the 1840's and 50's was truly remarkable. You should read some of his work if you have not.

His historical method had some merit, but economists tend to regard his economic theory to be behind the times on the day it was written, failing to account for the proportion of value that comes from design for instance even while that became ever more obvious.

So does that make Newton or Einstein idiots because eventually their theories will eventually be disproved? Cut the guy a break. WHat he figured out and when he figured it out is truly remarkable. Of course, some of his theories were BS, but so what? The guy was a f******* genius.

You play too much with the formatting and you've started attributing my words to yourself by accident now.
Perhaps that explains how you ended up attributing fake sentiments to me.
You are the one who started a whole tread about The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches
And now you are the guy telling me to give Karl Marx a break even for those of his less excellent theories which were behind the times when written and haven't aged well.

You are a weird man with some silly ideas, I can't be the first person to have mentioned this to you.

[Skepdick]

Yes, the system is not perfect [as a matter of fact, it's horribly corrupt at the moment], but that doesn't change the fact that there is only one economic system...capitalism.

OK, but at this point you are just arguing over labels. I don't give a shit what you call THE economic system.

Obvously there is only one - there's only one economy.

The rest take the profits generated from such and re-distribute. Are their vestiges of slavery and pseudo-feudalism going...of course, but the system that run global and national economies is capitalism.

Wait... What? The rest? I thought there is only one economic system. What is "the rest" of only one economic system?

[simplicity]

Why would you ever want to prostitute your economy by making it dependent on resources over which you have zero control?

That's a great question. Let's just take gold as an example [but perhaps other resources could be used]. The most important quality of money is that it hold its store of value [and in the optimal case, increase it's value...as happened in the U.S. during the 19th century]. If the currency increases in value due to an increase in social productivity, then all who use the currency realize an increase in their wealth. This is why so many emigrated to the U.S. in the 19th century. Otherwise [and especially with FIAT currencies] only the elite benefit.

So we are designating gold the substance which is going to back the currency. There are those who are concerned that there is only so much gold and this would prevent an economy from expanding. This could not be further from the truth. Let's say that there is x tons of gold backing all national currencies. So what happens when you have x tons of gold and y goods and services? We do the math and you find that z amount of gold equals v value. If the amount of gold stays stable in the next year, and the amount of GDP increases by 5%, then the gold has also increased in value by 5%.

This would only be true if every country on earth had the gold standard.
I would also mean 5% inflation, since the rise in gold is not balanced by a rise in economic wealth.

Same amount of money, 5% increase in goods and services means DEflation not INflation. THIS is the natural order of things using real money. Now the same amount of money buys more goods and services. Again, this is what happened in the U.S. using real money in the 19th century.

An increase in productivity would also be shared by all who use the currency. Imagine if all currencies in use increased by the amount of productivity increase over the past century. THIS is how you naturally spread out the productive wealth of a society and why it is critical for the elite to do anything they can to control money. Think about it. This has been known for thousands of years.

By using phony money, the elite [and governments that benefit from this scam] are taking most [if not all] the increase in in productivity and stashing it in their pockets. This is trillions of dollars.

The other part of the scam is how they leverage counterfeiting to work with their system of credit which [of course] is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time! If you were a banker, wouldn't you want to create money by loaning it into existence and then have to create enough money each year simply to pay off the interest due [to yourself]?

It was Henry Ford who said [and I paraphrase], "If the American people tonight found out how money works, by tomorrow morning there would be revolution."

[Age]

age: So, a 'man' is therefore just a member, or belongs to, the group known as human beings.

Just a herd member, yeah?

"herd member" are your words. "member" was my word.

age: Each 'man' is just FREE.

Yes, exactly.

So, do you also agree that; A 'man' does NOT own NOR possess freedom?

age: LOOK, you BELIEVE you have the, so-called, "right" to KILL people just because they touch IMMATERIAL things

Nope.

Then WHY write what you have, and continually keep doing?

age: There are a multitude of other examples I could provide.

You haven't provided even one yet.

So, to you, do you have the 'right' to kill "another" human being or not, if and when they deprive you of your property?

By the way, I do not recall someone spending so much time and effort 'trying to' back down on what they HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED and CLAIMED.

age: BUT you BELIEVE you ALREADY have the 'right' to KILL human beings DEAD if they "touch" your stuff, correct?

Nope.

Okay. So, ONCE AGAIN, you CONTRADICT your OWN made up rules.

age: And YET here you are being the VERY FIRST ONE to CLAIM that you can SHOOT people ["other" men] DEAD if they touch your toothpick.

Nope. Never said it. Never hinted at it.

Yes you have. Now PROVE that you have NOT.

age: You do NOT have to say. 'my world', for us to KNOW what exists in 'your world'.

You say that I've said if someone touches my stuff, even if it's a toothpick, or they're standing in a building, which I claim is mine, I believe I have the 'right' to forfeit that person's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

I never said it. Never even hinted at it.

LOL All we have to do is just LOOK AT what you have previously said to SEE that you have hinted at this.

age: ANY one only has to look through your writings to SEE what you have written.

Yep. That's what I've said to any number of folks on any number of topics: go see for yourself.

And we HAVE and CAN SEE that you have hinted at this.

age: If you, LOL, have supposedly NEVER even hinted at the above, then it will NOT be here, for ALL NOR for ANY one to SEE.

It's not here. Go, see for yourself.

LOL We ARE LOOKING at is NOW.

age: And, when you SHOOT people DEAD are you NOT forfeiting their lives?

Nope, I'm takin' a life. Whether my takin' it is justified is another matter.

OF COURSE it is "justified", to you. Otherwise you would NOT have TAKEN/FORFEITED their life, correct? Or, would you TAKE "another's" life when it is NOT justified?

age: Are you suggesting that people only give up their life, liberty, or property COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY?

I hadn't really thought of it that way, but -- yeah -- in context, that's the case.

LOL The RIDICULOUS is getting even MORE RIDICULOUS, NOW.

If you value what's mine enough to take it as yours, to steal it, then you voluntarily risk your life, your liberty, or your property.

So, if someone touches you stuff to take it as theirs, then, according to you, you have the 'right' to take or forfeit that person's life, liberty, or property, correct?

Also, what can now be CLEARLY SEEN is you 'trying to' BLAME the "other" for what you do. Which is making this even MORE OF A JOKE, NOW.

age: You quote the "american heritage dictionary", as though that should be one the WHOLE population of earth looks at, listen to, and follows

Fair point. So, which dictionary did you use to look up forfeit?

The one you provided.

But I also UNDERSTAND that there are other dictionaries and DIFFERENT definitions. But, for this discussion, the definition you use for the 'forfeit' word works PERFECTLY for me also here.

age: NO one PURPOSES 'loses' ANY thing like their life, liberty, NOR 'property".

If you mean to say no one purposely loses anything like their life, liberty, or property, you're partially right. No one gambles with the intent of losing, but only an idiot gambles not understanding he may very well lose. The skydiver voluntarily risks his life, the stockcar driver voluntarily risks his life, the climber of a vertical rock face voluntarily risks his life, the thief voluntarily risks his life.

The "owners" of life, liberty and "property" voluntarily risk their lives, liberty, and property by just deciding to continually live. And, those who think or BELIEVE that they have some sort of 'right' to OWN and HAVE more than "OTHER" human beings, voluntarily risk their lives, liberties, AND "properties" while holding and having these BELIEFS or thoughts.

BUT, so what?

Hell, for most folks, just gettin' out of bed in the mornin' entails risk and the possibility of loss.

Taking one's first breath and wanting to keep breathing entails risk and the possibility of loss. But, AGAIN, SO WHAT?

[Age]

If someone takes someone else's rightful possessions by force then they should be made to give them back.

Does the same also apply when someone takes someone "else's" rightful land/country by force, then should they also be made to give it back to them?

Much wealth in the UK comes from the Atlantic slave trade, and from slave economies such as Southern States of the US as were. Those of us in the UK who can pay back what is owed to the descendants of slaves, should be made to do so.

How does one give back the stolen and taken FREEDOM, to descendants, of those who are ALREADY DEAD?

[Age]

If someone takes someone else's rightful possessions by force then they should be made to give them back.

Much wealth in the UK comes from the Atlantic slave trade, and from slave economies such as Southern States of the US as were. Those of us in the UK who can pay back what is owed to the descendants of slaves, should be made to do so.

Let's suppose that's true. But here's a true fact: 100% of the slave owners were Democrats.

LOL As if this MATTERS, AT ALL. Talk about just how DISTORTED some people's views REALLY ARE.

Besides this being of NO matter AT ALL, thinking or BELIEVING the so-called "democrats" of one era/period are the SAME as those a decade or a hundred years ago, or in the future, is just RIDICULOUS.

The Republicans were in the industrial north, and fought to abolish slavery. They died doing it, in the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil.

YET here the so-called "republicans" are creating a new wave of slavery, in the days when this is being written. Or, are some people SO BLIND that they are NOT YET ABLE to SEE this Fact?

So let's make the Democrats pay everybody for what they did. They've got lots of money: let's have it, then.

ONCE AGAIN, it is ALL ABOUT money AND greed.

But that, too would be unjust. For whatever the ancient Democrats did, their children's children's children had no part in.

But 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, ARE causing ANOTHER round of slaves AND slavery.

Still, the Left would say we have to accuse them all of "systemic racism," and "historical guilt," and "white privilege," and "complicity in oppression." And we must forever bludgeon their innocent progeny, and make them feel horrible for the legacy of a slavery their great great grandparents caused, and in which they never could even participate at all.

From either side, Democrat or Republican, or just from common sense, that's just lunacy. But if anybody gets reparations, let it be the direct ancestors of the slaves themselves, and also the Republicans and northerners who defeated the Democrats and freed the slaves, and died in such huge numbers to do it.