|
|
|
We live in a world being pillaged by the institutions of global
capitalism to enrich the few at the expense of the many. It has become
more than just a political issue. We have reached the point in human
history at which the very survival of civilization and perhaps our
species depends on replacing these rogue institutions with
institutions supportive of democracy, market economies, and ethical
cultures that function in service to life and community...
For those of us who grew up believing that capitalism is the
foundation of democracy, market freedom, and the good life it has been
a rude awakening to realize that under capitalism, democracy is for
sale to the highest bidder, the market is centrally planned by global
mega-corporations larger than most countries, the elimination of jobs
and livelihoods is rewarded as an economic virtue, and the destruction
of nature and life to make money for the already rich is viewed as
progress. Let us speak truth tonight. Global capitalism is not
democratic and it systematically violates every principle of a market
economy...
Under global capitalism the world is ruled by a global financial
casino staffed by faceless bankers, money managers, and hedge fund
spec
|
| |
| |
sorry - first try only had 1/3 of it - here's the whole thing:
=======
We live in a world being pillaged by the institutions of global
capitalism to enrich the few at the expense of the many. It has become
more than just a political issue. We have reached the point in human
history at which the very survival of civilization and perhaps our
species depends on replacing these rogue institutions with institutions
supportive of democracy, market economies, and ethical cultures that
function in service to life and community...
For those of us who grew up believing that capitalism is the foundation
of democracy, market freedom, and the good life it has been a rude
awakening to realize that under capitalism, democracy is for sale to
the highest bidder, the market is centrally planned by global
mega-corporations larger than most countries, the elimination of jobs
and livelihoods is rewarded as an economic virtue, and the destruction
of nature and life to make money for the already rich is viewed as
progress. Let us speak truth tonight. Global capitalism is not
democratic and it systematically violates every principle of a market
economy...
Under global capitalism the world is ruled by a global financial
casino staffed by faceless bankers, money managers, and hedge fund
speculators who operate with a herd mentality that sends exchange
rates and stock prices into wild gyrations unrelated to any underlying
economic reality. With reckless abandon they make and break national
economies, buy and sell corporations, and hire and fire corporate
CEOs--holding the most powerful politicians and corporate managers
hostage to their interests. When their bets pay off they claim the
winnings as their own. When they lose, they run to governments and
public institutions to make up their losses with cries that the
financial skies will fall if they are forced to suffer the market's
discipline.
Contrary to its claims, capitalism's relationship to democracy and the
market economy is much the same as the relationship of a cancer to the
body whose life energies it expropriates. Cancer is a pathology that
occurs when an otherwise healthy cell forgets that it is a part of the
body and begins to pursue its own unlimited growth without regard to
the consequences for the whole. The growth of the cancerous cells
deprives the healthy cells of nourishment and ultimately kills both
the body and itself. Capitalism does much the same to the societies it
infests.
Another way of characterizing our situation is that we find ourselves
unwitting participants in an epic contest between money and life for
the soul of humanity. And it comes down to a fairly literal choice as
to which we value more--our money or our lives.
###
From the work of David C. Korten, the author of the international
best-seller When Corporations Rule the World; The Post-Corporate
World: Life after Capitalism; Globalizing Civil Society; and Getting
to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda, among
others; co-founder and board chair of the Positive Futures Network,
which publishes YES! A Journal of Positive Futures; founder and
president of the People-Centered Development Forum; an associate of
the International Forum on Globalization; a visionary advisor member
of the Social Ventures Network; national steering committee member of
the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies; and a Commissioner
of the State of the World Forum's Commission on Globalization.
Much of his work has been published on the web by the People-Centered
Development Forum: http://www.pcdf.org/
|
| |
| |
On 30 Dec 2004 19:12:18 -0800, "RH" <halcon7roho@yahoo.com> wrote:
sorry - first try only had 1/3 of it - here's the whole thing:
***snip***
Who gives a #@($ about a bunch of neo Communist propaganda?
Communism is dead and the Socialists are the next to go the way of the
Dodo bird. Good riddance.
Strider
|
| |
| |
In article <1104462738.922390.120840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, RH
<halcon7roho@yahoo.com> wrote:
sorry - first try only had 1/3 of it - here's the whole thing:
=======
We live in a world being pillaged by the institutions of global
capitalism to enrich the few at the expense of the many. It has become
more than just a political issue. We have reached the point in human
history at which the very survival of civilization and perhaps our
species depends on replacing these rogue institutions with institutions
supportive of democracy, market economies, and ethical cultures that
function in service to life and community...
People who think as you do need to be sent up the chimneys.
--Tim May
|
| |
| |
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and
causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the
war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high
places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour
to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until
all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is
destroyed." : Abraham Lincoln - 1865
="Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible
government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to
the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy
alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first
task of the statesmanship of today." : President Theodore Roosevelt -
1906
="A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our
system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our
activities are in the hands of a few men.
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most
completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no
longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by
conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion
and duress of small groups of dominant men." : Woodrow Wilson - From
his Campaign Speeches, 1912
="The developed nations of the world cannot remain secure islands of
prosperity in a seething sea of poverty. The storm is rising against
the privileged minority of the earth, from which there is no shelter in
isolation and armament. The storm will not abate until a just
distribution of the fruits of the earth enables men everywhere to live
in dignity and human decency." Martin Luther King, Jr
="Without sharing there can be no justice; without justice there can be
no peace; without peace there can be no future." The World Teacher
..
..
Best wishes for a Peaceful 2005
|
| |
| |
We live in a world being pillaged by the institutions of global
capitalism to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
And the answer to this "crisis" is what?
Global socialism?
No, thank you.
I choose freedom.
|
| |
| |
It's democracy you fools! A gov't by and for the people. What we have
in the USA is a form of totalitarianism disguised as democracy.
The blind lead the blind.
Boy oh boy oh boy!
============================
One short concise article:
Propaganda American Style by Noam Chomsky
http://www.zpub.com/un/chomsky.html
----------------------------------------
Media Education Foundation
Elite Propaganda
THE MYTH OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA
The Propaganda Model of News
watch/listen to free 60 min. video:
Video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6435.htm
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky demolish one of the central tenets of
our political culture, the idea of the "liberal media." Instead,
utilizing a systematic model based on massive empirical research, they
reveal the manner in which the news media are so subordinated to
corporate and conservative interests that their function can only be
described as that of "elite propaganda."
"If you want to understand the way a system works, you look at its
institutional structure. How it is organized, how it is controlled,
how it is funded." -Noam Chomsky
"The Mainstream media really represent elite interests, and what the
propaganda model tries to do is stipulate a set of institutional
variables, reflecting this elite power, that very powerfully influence
the media." -Edward Herman
-----------------------------------------
News and views for the progressive community:
http://www.CommonDream.org
The truth will set us free (from war and other absurdities).
The Ruling Elite's Lies will only enslave us.
....
..
|
| |
| |
RH <halcon7roho@yahoo.com> wrote:
Under global capitalism the world is ruled by a global financial
casino staffed by faceless bankers, money managers, and hedge fund
spec
Better capitalism than Nazism or Communism.
|
| |
| |
RH wrote:
We live in a world being pillaged by the institutions of global capitalism
to enrich the few at the expense of the many. [...]
It's not capitalism, but rather a form of mercantilism. You moron.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RH wrote:
It's not capitalism, but rather a form of mercantilism. You moron.
Socialism for us (the Bush gang), and brutal capitalism for the
little people. Amazing that you'd see it that clearly, Ted....
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Socialism for us (the Bush gang), and brutal capitalism for the little
people. Amazing that you'd see it that clearly, Ted....
Capitalism isn't "brutal". Capitalism functions on the basis of agreement.
You airhead.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
In misc.survivalism Willcox <not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote:
RH <halcon7roho@yahoo.com> wrote:
Under global capitalism the world is ruled by a global financial
casino staffed by faceless bankers, money managers, and hedge fund
spec
Better capitalism than Nazism or Communism.
That's about the best one can say. All political and economic systems
have good points and bad.
Republican and Democratic systems are unlikely to get the most effective
leadership, but they are seen as fair by most folks. Capitalism is a
good system for producing wealth, but it is a bad system for distibuting
wealth over wide swaths of the populace, tending towards a top-heavy
distribution. Socialism/Communism can be operated in a manner which
distributes wealth in a way which many people see as fair, but
historically, it is a bad system for maximizing total wealth.
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
|
| |
| |
In misc.survivalism Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Capitalism isn't "brutal". Capitalism functions on the basis of agreement.
You airhead.
But laissez-faire capitalism can result in some entities being able to
dictate the terms of thise ageements. In such a case, the degree of
brutality depends entirely on the attitudes and desires of those in
charge of the entities.
That is why we have a regulated form of capitalism. In the bad old days,
before the anti-trust laws, labor laws, pollution laws, etc., unfettered
capitalism caused many problems. Look at what happened in the bad old
days to those who tried to organize unions. Their attempt to get to the
bargaining table to reach agreement with management was not met with
benevolence, but rather, brutality. They could dictate the terms of the
"agreement" because they had the only game in town.
Currently, (but maybe not for long?) we have a hybrid system which tries
to balance the good points of capitalism with reforms which shave off its
rough edges.
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
We live in a world being pillaged by the institutions of global
capitalism to enrich the few at the expense of the many. [...]
It's not capitalism, but rather a form of mercantilism. You moron.
Capitalism isn't "brutal".
Sure it is, Ted! It is brutal -- and brutally efficient. And that
is why people try so hard to avoid them (e.g., creating oligopolies
and/or monopolies). Just read a history of the labor movement, and see
what is certain to happen if the terms of those "agreements" can be
dictated by one of the parties to them. :(
Capitalism functions on the basis of agreement. You airhead.
Whereas socialism -- and Bushian fascism -- functions on the basis of
brute force.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Sure it is, Ted!
No it isn't.
It is brutal
Is NOT!
-- and brutally efficient.
Equivocation. While capitalism might be EXTREMELY efficient, it certainly
isn't "brutal" in any sense of the word.
And that is why people try so hard to avoid them
[agreements, presumably]
(e.g., creating oligopolies and/or monopolies).
Oligopolies and monopolies are formed in order to create an advantage for
those who form them. And such schemes and/or alliances can never succeed
without the active assistance or participation of government in supporting
them.
Just read a history of the labor movement,
Which in its practical form is nothing more than an exercise in orgainsed
thuggery.
and see what is certain to happen if the terms of those "agreements" can be
dictated by one of the parties to them. :(
As they CAN be in the contemporary American labor movement (though NOT in
this case by the party that is generally depicted as the "bad guy"). And (as
the labor force of U.S. Airways is perhaps about to find out) the ULTIMATE
results can sometimes be VERY different than what was envisioned.
Capitalism functions on the basis of agreement. You airhead.
Whereas socialism -- and Bushian fascism
And the modern American mercantilism that masquerades as "capitalism" ...
-- functions on the basis of brute force.
The state invariably imposes its will through brute force. As Mao once said,
power comes from the barrel of a gun.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
In misc.survivalism Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
I didn't write in misc.survivalism -- I never even read that group. If my
response happened to be cross-posted into that group by virtue of where the
original article appeared, then so be it. But I have very little interest
in reading the blatherings of militant anarcho-libertarian chicken-littles
waiting for the sky to fall.
Capitalism isn't "brutal". Capitalism functions on the basis of
agreement. You airhead.
But laissez-faire capitalism
And where is laissez-faire capitalism being practised? Certainly not in the
U.S.A. And it never has been, not from 1789 until today.
can result in some entities being able to dictate the terms of thise
ageements.
The proper functioning of the MARKETPLACE results in one party being able to
NEGOTIATE the terms of an agreement (i.e., the PRICE) more to its favour --
and this happens OFTEN! That is how the marketplace is SUPPOSED to work. A
shortage of a given commodity results in a high price -- which is a signal
that spurs some of the more marginal producers into the market, while an
overabundance results in a low price -- another signal, which drives the
marginal producers FROM the market.
In an open marketplace, free of interference, no one DICTATES to anyone else.
Exchanges take place when an AGREEMENT is reached, through NEGOTIATION. The
only entity that can DICTATE, and thus impose its will, is the government.
And any meddling by the government into the price system will confuses the
indispensible signals which prices provide, and will invariably result in
oversupply or undersupply problems, according as whether a high price or a
low price is being enforced.
This season's flu vaccine problem in the U.S. was due to price regulations on
producers that the Clinton Administration had imposed some years ago. The
effect of these regulations today is that they force American producers to
incur a loss by producing flu vaccine (because it costs them more to produce
it than they can charge for it), so they don't produce any. And, as slavery
has been abolished by the 13th amendment, the government can't force them to
do so.
In such a case, the degree of brutality depends entirely on the attitudes
and desires of those in charge of the entities.
And the cold, unfeeling hand of the government can be very brutal indeed.
That is why we have a regulated form of capitalism.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT! Oxymoron! We have a form of MERCANTILISM.
In the bad old days, before the anti-trust laws, labor laws, pollution
laws, etc., unfettered capitalism caused many problems.
Except that, we have never had unfettered capitalism in the U.S.
Look at what happened in the bad old days to those who tried to organize
unions.
You mean, to THUGS?
Their attempt to get to the bargaining table to reach agreement with
management was not met with benevolence, but rather, brutality.
Which is exactly how I should expect one to react to thugs.
They could dictate the terms of the "agreement" because they had the only
game in town.
Then there must not have been "unfettered capitalism" in place. Because the
existing producers had some means by which they could quash any potential
competition and thus protect their monopoly, seeing as they were "the only
game in town".
Currently, (but maybe not for long?) we have a hybrid system which tries to
balance the good points of capitalism with reforms which shave off its
rough edges.
So what are the "good points" of capitalism, and what are its "rough edges"?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
No it isn't.
Is NOT!
Of course, many common words have different meanings in Ted Kaldis'
Completely-Fucked Dictionary.
Equivocation. While capitalism might be EXTREMELY efficient, it certainly
isn't "brutal" in any sense of the word.
It is, in the sense that it is unforgiving. Capitalism only asks one
question: What have you done for me today. Competition is "brutal," but
one can also say that it brings out the best (and worst) in us.
And that is why people try so hard to avoid them
[agreements, presumably]
Monopolies. Oligopolies. Acquisition of markets, as opposed to
competing for them. Restrictive trade practices. Trade guilds (e.g.,
doctors, lawyers).
Oligopolies and monopolies are formed in order to create an advantage for
those who form them. And such schemes and/or alliances can never succeed
without the active assistance or participation of government in supporting
them.
Exactumundo. Those who seek to enter into them are often champions
of capitalism when applied *to others.* The Bush Family Crime Syndicate
is a prime example. :)
Just read a history of the labor movement,
Which in its practical form is nothing more than an exercise in orgainsed
thuggery.
Really? Every significant benefit you enjoy as a laborer today was
achieved on the back of organized labor. If you don't have any problem
with businesses organizing into unions (think mergers and acquisitions),
you shouldn't have any problem with laborers doing so.
and see what is certain to happen if the terms of those "agreements" can be
dictated by one of the parties to them. :(
As they CAN be in the contemporary American labor movement (though NOT in
this case by the party that is generally depicted as the "bad guy"). And (as
the labor force of U.S. Airways is perhaps about to find out) the ULTIMATE
results can sometimes be VERY different than what was envisioned.
Competition is brutal -- the "legacy" carriers go out of business, as
their cost structures and business plans become obsolete.
Capitalism functions on the basis of agreement. You airhead.
And the modern American mercantilism that masquerades as "capitalism" ...
Do we have true capitalism? Of course not! We can never have it, in
the true Adam Smith sense of the word. But we *are* steadily slouching
toward fascism, with our Great Dictator leading the way.
-- functions on the basis of brute force.
The state invariably imposes its will through brute force. As Mao once said,
power comes from the barrel of a gun.
IOW, we shouldn't really give a #@($ about Cam Brown. The State has
him right where they want him.... :)
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 14:20:26 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I didn't write in misc.survivalism -- I never even read that group. If my
response happened to be cross-posted into that group by virtue of where the
original article appeared, then so be it. But I have very little interest
in reading the blatherings of militant anarcho-libertarian chicken-littles
waiting for the sky to fall.
If thats your view, biased, stupid and inane (ask those in the Indian
ocean nations about chicken little), nothing you have to say on any
other subject is worth reading, as you are evidently too stupid to
pour warm piss out of a boot, even with instructions on the heel.
Into the old bit bucket with the rest of the retarded, you go.
upsiedaisy...
<plink>
Gunner
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being
free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stewart Mill
|
| |
| |
There is nothing to preven you from forming a cooperative, employee
owned venture to produce wealth without exploitation.
Nor anything to prevent the re-investment of profits for the benefit of
expanding your model globally.
all you need is rational people ... if you can find any.
If you do, email me. I'd like to hear what they have to say about your
plan to compete in the global economy.
But as for getting a democratic majority, forget it. The electorate is
no longer rational enough to do it that way. The only thing that they
understand is the Almighty Dollar. So unless your efforts produce enough
wealth they wont be interested in what you have to say.
|
| |
| |
Capitalism isn't "brutal". Capitalism functions on the basis of
agreement.
You airhead.
He's clealry made the mistake of whistling while he pisses.
Capitalism is the only system where all are free.
|
| |
| |
But laissez-faire capitalism can result in some entities being able to
dictate the terms of thise ageements.
No.
If you do not like the terms of an agreement, you are under no compulsion to
enter into to.
Only under laissex-faire capitalism can people freely choose to enter
agreements under any terms that please them.
That is why we have a regulated form of capitalism.
Nope, capitalism ain't regulated.
|
| |
| |
In misc.survivalism Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So what are the "good points" of capitalism, and what are its "rough edges"?
The best attribute of capitalism is that it efficiantly produces the
maximum amounts of wealth, goods and services.
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
|
| |
| |
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
In misc.survivalism Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
The best attribute of capitalism is that it efficiantly produces the
maximum amounts of wealth, goods and services.
The worst part is that there are winners and losers, and losing often
has disastrous consequences, as the human and/or environmental toll can
be enormous.
|
| |
| |
In misc.survivalism Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
The worst part is that there are winners and losers, and losing often
has disastrous consequences, as the human and/or environmental toll can
be enormous.
You stated it better than I could/would have. I would have stated it in
terms of wealth distribution.
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
The worst part is that there are winners and losers,
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!! WRONGO, DRONGO! The key facet of a transaction in a
purely capitalistic system is that, unless BOTH parties to it perceive that
it will be to their advantage, the transaction will never take place. So,
rather than having "winners and losers", everybody wins under capitalism.
and losing often has disastrous consequences, as the human and/or
environmental toll can be enormous.
And I'm sure that Ken can tell us MUCH about the deleterious consequences of
losing.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
So what are the "good points" of capitalism, and what are its "rough
edges"?
The best attribute of capitalism is that it efficiantly produces the
maximum amounts of wealth, goods and services.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!! WRONGO, DRONGO! The key facet of a transaction in a
purely capitalistic system is that, unless BOTH parties to it perceive that
it will be to their advantage, the transaction will never take place. So,
rather than having "winners and losers", everybody wins under capitalism.
In a pristine, idealistic state of capitalism, in accordance with
Adam Smith's theory? Yes. But in the real world, that state of affairs
does not and cannot exist, as advantaged members of a society will be
counted on to press their advantage -- another inevitable corollary of
efficient market theory.
and losing often has disastrous consequences, as the human and/or
environmental toll can be enormous.
And I'm sure that Ken can tell us MUCH about the deleterious consequences of
losing.
We'd ask Cam Brown, but he seems to have a, er, um, prior engagement,
and can't exactly "GET FREE" long enough to explain it to us. ;)
You presuppose that we're talking about a capitalist system -- and
our legal system is certainly more akin to pure, unadulterated,
Soviet-style SOCIALISM. In the dens of despotism we call courts, judges
do whatever they feel; niceties like due process and "the rule of law"
are scarcely paid even lip service any more.
Since you won't take it from jls and me because we're "dirty
heathen," perhaps we can prevail upon Esk to explain modern
non-publication rules, how they have supplanted and even invalidated
"the rule of law," and why Judge Bork can credibly assert that judges
have engineered "a [de facto] coup d'etat."
(My comments: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/corruption2.htm.)
Personally, I'd be interested in Esk's 'take' on whether he goes into
the courtroom knowing to a reasonable certainty that the judge will not
bother to follow binding SCOTUS and Circuit precedents exactly on-point.
Or whether he routinely advises clients that, while applicable
statutory law and established precedent exist, they ought to arrange
their affairs under the assumption that trial courts will not follow
them as a matter of course. Or, whether he *routinely* counsels clients
that they rely upon his "expert" advice strictly at their peril.
Ted, for you to criticize my actions in re: the matter you're
alluding to (my battle with the CO bar), you *have* to maintain not only
that the typical attorney does what I am suggesting here -- advising
clients that they cannot rely on the law! -- but that it is necessarily
*malpractice* for attorneys like Esk and jls to *not* advise clients
that they cannot rely on the law.
|
| |
| |
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!! WRONGO, DRONGO! The key facet of a transaction in a
purely capitalistic system is that, unless BOTH parties to it perceive that
it will be to their advantage, the transaction will never take place. So,
rather than having "winners and losers", everybody wins under capitalism.
Capitalist idealism......hmmmmmmm.
Not sure where you live, but the only people who can create that
economic equation are those who do not need the deal to survive. The
poor devil's who cannot are treated as slaves, and as a result ensure
that a fair transaction is for the rich only.
One could easily say that capitalism (as defined by the American
model) ensures freedom as there is more profit in a free country and
free market, but that is no excuse to not regulate to ensure balance
and fair play.
Now if our injustice system actually worked.....lol
and losing often has disastrous consequences, as the human and/or
environmental toll can be enormous.
And I'm sure that Ken can tell us MUCH about the deleterious consequences of
losing.
|
| |
| |
In article <41D9494D.F3B9B81A@yahoo.com>, Blue Oracle
<blue_oracle_ns@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Capitalist idealism......hmmmmmmm.
Not sure where you live, but the only people who can create that
economic equation are those who do not need the deal to survive. The
poor devil's who cannot are treated as slaves, and as a result ensure
that a fair transaction is for the rich only.
One could easily say that capitalism (as defined by the American
model) ensures freedom as there is more profit in a free country and
free market, but that is no excuse to not regulate to ensure balance
and fair play.
"to ensure balance and fairl play" is a code phrase which means: you
need to be sent up the chimneys in smoke.
I am tired of commies, Jews, and negroes stealing from me in the name
of "balance" and "fairness" and I have decided to spend my money to see
that those who think the way the way they do, and act on their
thoughts, are liquidated.
America would be an OK place if 40 million niggers and nigger-thinkers
were rounded up, tried, and exterminated.
--Tim May
|
| |
| |
In article <030120050125256672%timcmay@removethis.got.net>,
timcmay@removethis.got.net says...
I am tired of commies, Jews, and negroes stealing from me in the name
of "balance" and "fairness"
That's ok; we're tired of bigots who think that being forced to play on
a level field means they're being stolen from.
America would be an OK place if 40 million niggers and nigger-thinkers
were rounded up, tried, and exterminated.
It would be a better place if people like you actually bothered to learn
what America's all about.
|
| |
| |
In misc.survivalism Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!! WRONGO, DRONGO! The key facet of a transaction in a
purely capitalistic system is that, unless BOTH parties to it perceive that
it will be to their advantage, the transaction will never take place. So,
rather than having "winners and losers", everybody wins under capitalism.
Winner: Mill Owner
Winner: 12 year old girl, paid $2 to work 12 hours.
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
|
| |
| |
In misc.survivalism Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Personally, I'd be interested in Esk's 'take' on whether he goes into
the courtroom
I'm not a litigator. I never "go into the courtroom".
knowing to a reasonable certainty that the judge will not
bother to follow binding SCOTUS and Circuit precedents exactly on-point.
Or whether he routinely advises clients that, while applicable
statutory law and established precedent exist, they ought to arrange
their affairs under the assumption that trial courts will not follow
I advise my clients that litigation is a long, slow and expensive way to
solve a dispute, and that cutting a deal is generally the best solution.
My job is to craft a deal in which both sides are satisfied. So far, so
good.
Or, whether he *routinely* counsels clients
that they rely upon his "expert" advice strictly at their peril.
Of course. They make the decisions. I just clarify for them what
factors they need to consider.
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
|
| |
| |
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!! WRONGO, DRONGO! The key facet of a transaction in
a purely capitalistic system is that, unless BOTH parties to it perceive
that it will be to their advantage, the transaction will never take place.
So, rather than having "winners and losers", everybody wins under
capitalism.
Winner: Mill Owner
Winner: 12 year old girl, paid $2 to work 12 hours.
False example. Did the 12-year-old girl AGREE to work in the factory for
that sum? I think it's a safe assumption that she did NOT! So there's no
agreement here, but rather COERCION. Which is NEVER a facet of capitalism,
but is ALWAYS an indispensible feature of socialism.
Please come back when you have an honest example.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
| |
