Manga News: Check out these new manga (5/18/15 - 5/24/15).
New Forums: Visit the new forums for Boku no Hero Academia!
Forum News: Cast your votes to determine the best parent in the Anime Showdown.
This is EPIC, MUST WATCH DEBATE, it's thee decision before the U.S. and Europe:
Debate of Role of Government in U.S. Society
I know there's similar threads, but this link would jsut be lost in a post, that's why I made a new thread, so this link is in the OP.
anyways, use this thread to discuss-debate, so the thread serves some purpose.
And there's the poll too...
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 04, 2012 at 06:24 AM.
Neither, because it isn't that simple in real life.
We live under left-wing individualism, because corporation-friendly leftists advance their agendas within a capitalist economic system, and using the corporate media, to promote their agendas.
yes there's "leftists" who are really capitalists as you mentioned, and there are "rightists" who are really socialists too. And there's definately even more problems-corruption-deception-whatever as well, then just these two.
But... what does this has to do with which idea-direction is better?
or, do you have a 3rd idea-direction, something other than "capitalism" and "socialism" ???
I can't think of any other alternative 3rd option though... you're either for individualism-myself or collectivism-society-group-others... what 3rd option might there be here ??? what else is there besides individual-myself (1 person) vs group-others (2 or more persons) ???
(okay... I guess you can be for ZERO people too... lol. You're not for any human, you're not for the human race, lol. You are for the destruction-extinction of the human race. okay, there's this 3rd option too, lol. but is there another 3rd option then this? what else is there besides: Zero, 1, and 2+more ???)
and I do agree with your "leftists" as really capitalists:
in the U.S., there's "hate the old rich white republicans", yet the elite democrats are just as "old rich whites" too... getting richer and richer and more and more powerful, while their "minorities that they're supporting-helping" continue to stay in their lower status and living conditions, with the widening economic gap between them and their own rich white democrat elites whom they love to vote for. I don't know whether I should pity the minorities for being so gullibly deceived and abused and taken advantage of, while still remaining blind to it, sighs, or not to be pitying of them. But, the democrat elite old rich white capitalists have successfully brainwashed our nation, as it's "only" the "old rich white republicans", even as they are getting richer and richer and more powerful, while their own minorities "that they're so for and caring about" remain poor and in the same living conditions despite all the democrat elites' increased social-welfare programs and throwing around the stolen money from the republicans... sighs. I am all for a 90% Tax on the rich DEMOCRATS, they DO need to pay their FAIR SHARE, as it's about time!!!
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 04, 2012 at 01:29 PM.
American liberals talk about the white, mostly Christian 'rednecks' with the kind of stereotypes, slurs and epithets that they consider unacceptable when directed against racial and religious minorities. And the same thing is true in my country too, think of what was said against Emma West, the Epic Tram Lady who flipped out when an immigrant spat at her child.
But you're right though, the rich support the rights of immigrants because capitalists want to use them as cheap labour instead of paying members of their own people a decent wage. They have no love of the foreigners, they're just using them. And the condescending things they say about their ethnic pets, sometimes makes me wonder whether they actually see these minorities as human themselves. And the hate they feel for members of racial or other minorities who doesn't follow the party line, even moderate conservatives, is way worse than anything from the so-called 'white supremacists', proving my point.
What we need is social collectivism based around the family and community instead of the welfare state, and a return to farming and manufacture to give us stability against economic disasters.
Or they use the minorities for their votes-elections... and keeping them as babies or slaves, dependant upon their democrat elites of "old rich whites" to be "hand-fed" by all this welfare-social programs they create, instead of trying to help them become independant, get educated, get a job, get rich... sighs. The democrat elite "old rich whites" just use the minorities for their own power within the government, using them - forcing them - to vote for the democrat elite "old rich whites" own power and luxury as congressmen or of the administration-executive of government, as otherwise, the minoties will lose all of their preciuos programs that they've been taught to be so dependant upon, thus they have to keep the democrat elite "old rich whites" in government power, keep making them more and more powerful... just like how CEOs need their workers, to keep making them rich and powerful... democrat elite "old rich whites" are the ultimate CEOs, abusing their "workers"... I mean their owned voting constitient minorities... sighs.
As that Black person asked the Demos guy, Calahan (forgot his first name at the moment and too lazy to look it up), ~"Do you want our choice to be between being poor but free, or being slightly better off but as slaves of you democrat elite slavemasters upon your democrat politcal party plantation...", and Calahan looked dumbfounded... I think he seriously had no idea what the Black guy was even talking about, unware of how enslaving their party is... I mean look at slavery, white slave masters, and their plantations... the white slave masters provided their black slaves everything... food, board-shelter, ~protection, (as well as all the bad stuff too obviously - rape lashings murder etc), and that's exactly what the democrats advocate for... a welfare state, you will be our slaves... and we'll provide everything for you... we like keeping you powerless and depend upon us for all of your needs because we've un-taught you how to support yourself... you need our handouts our programs, and without them, you can't function-live on your own... oh do we own you, own you more than the southern republican slave masters ever did... and most of you don't even know it, that you're our property, our slaves of our democratic elite old rich white ruled political party. We already see the complete inability to function and live within Europe, especially Greece... waah waah, we're crying babies... mommy government... please give us our milk (as we'll riot and riot criminally vandalizing and destroying our beloved society that we supposedly care to much about, having our temper-tantrums as the babies and spoiled brats that we are!)... as we can't feed ourselves, as you've never weened us, you've keep us on your socialist government bosom... sighs... Unweened 60-70 year olds and their just as unweened 20-30 year old children, still attached to their mommy government bosom... that's just outright gross... sighs. We are not what we were in the 1940's. The 1940's had MEN, but 2012 doesn't even have boys, we've got spoiled crying infants-babies
socialism leads directly back to the two factioned-ness of feudalism, of ruling abusive lords (the government-police) and their unruly-rioting peasants (citizens)... sighs. The "Great" Glory of Socialism: Feudalism !! Ya, that was the life!
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 04, 2012 at 07:23 PM.
Agriculture has been linked to the economy. Having a strong agriculture implies a strong economy. A weak agriculture implies a weak economy or one that is brittle.
Manufacturing is of great importance too. It helps a nation compete by having it on the cutting edge of technology. Another thing is that it also keeps the money cycling internally.
But one also has to consider the financial policies of a nation. For instance, the U.S. has one of the most highest corporate/business tax. This deter foreign business from operating within the U.S. and it also encourages outsourcing for domestic business. In addition, high business taxes makes it hard for a fledgling business to make profits.
Anyway, the slave masters provided everything, but they expected something in return for their "generosity." If this expectation is not met, the slaves will suffer the consequences.
Sigh. There are so many pressing issues that need attention. Many are looking at the symptoms and not really at the problems. The problem, in my opinion, isn't so much in the system of government but in the people that have power rule. In the U.S., we have an interesting dilemma. Is it the Federal Government that's at fault or is it the Government outlined in the Constitution that's at fault?
Do you know of a fourth option besides:
1. 0 (Zero) = you hate humanity, you don't care about others, not even yourself = "?enemy-criminal of humanity?"
2. 1 = Individualism = myself = the person = Ayn Rand = "Capitalism"
3. 2 (and more) = others = Demos = society = collectivism = the group = the people = "socialism"
so what's a 4th option besides 0 (Zero), 1, and 2 ??
as of right now... let's obviously ignore the Zero option, lol....
there's only 1 (Individualism-myself-person) or 2+ ("group'ism"-others-people), what else is there besides these two ?
you either care about yourself (the person) or others (the people), what else is there ???
that was extremely rare though... for Black to find-have their own land and buy-sell-use Black slaves themselves...
sadly many Blacks had to return to their white slave masters as they weren't able or allowed to have-get-find any land (or own) any land for themselves.
Also... not all white slave masters were cruel and inhumane... some Black slaves were more like indentured servants and/or even family members... and it wasn't all rape... some Black women did love their white masters on their own violation. As well as white women taking interest in their black male slaves too. There was a lot more harmony, tolerance, and intermarriage then either the southern whites or the blacks wanted to admit to the "history books", hehe , (though that doesn't in any way diminish the usual-common harsh-cruel-inhumane plantations and their white slave masters).
Also... thw white southern slave masters did make a very good point:
while they were enslaving blacks.... so TOO was the north (just not of Blacks), with their factories and mills....
was there really any difference between being a slave on a plantation in the south, or a slave in a mill or factory in the north? No! both were "not very pleasant" (barring the small exceptions), both "workers" (the plantation "workers" and the mills-factories "workers") were property.
yet... the north were "abolitionists" towards the southern plantations... but not any "abolitionism" towards their OWN mills and factory enslavement...
the southern slave masters correctly pointed out abject hypocrisy.... by the North...
also... while the North attacked the south with abolitionism, it had NOTHING to actually do with helping the Blacks.... as... guess what the "pro-Black" attitude was by the North towards Blacks:
~"Don't you damned N...., come up here to live in OUR North! We're helping you to be free, but don't you dare try to come up here to live amongst us in the north! We don't want your kind up here in the north!"
BOTH North and South Whites were intolerant towards Blacks... so the "Abolitionism" by the North was just about crushing the rival South, it had nothing to do with the human-rights of helping the Blacks in the south.
and it continues to this day... the northern and western democrats don't give a damn about minorities, they just want to crush their political rival, the republicans. All the democrats want is the minorities' votes, that's it... they don't actually want to help elevate the minorities to richness and prosperity, they want the minorities to remain enslaved dependant voters and constitients for their own democrat party's power and re-elections.
Reconstruction (after the Civil war, in the South by North's Pres. Lincoln)
The Mills - which were slave work camps (in the North)
Carpetbaggers' invasion-exploitation of the South (from the North)
Robber Barons, such as the birth of the Corporation from the railroad Barons (from the North)
Pres. Lincoln's (of the North) involvement in Reconstructionism, being pro-slavery allowing slavery to continue in the southern slave states, allowing for the black codes, jim crow, and etc... vs the Radical Republicans who wanted to severely punish the south for their insurrection. Reconstruction in the south was not much better than the prior antebellum south... No, the Northerns didn't give a damn about the Blacks... they just wanted to crush the south and expand their own corporations and riches from their newly usurped south... via the spoils of the civil war win.
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 05, 2012 at 07:15 AM.
"Authoritarian regimes rarely ask for loans. They are producer-fixated, instead of being financier-fixated. Our diplomats and financiers predicted that the dictatorships would fail, but they were wrong: they were, in fact, working very well for the small farmer, small shopkeeper, small producer, and would again, if the fear of war could be removed." - F. Yeats-Brown
---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------
There were black slave owners ans white slaves (and not only indentured labour!), and most whites in the deep south of the USA will be the descendants of white, Celtic slaves.Quote:
Actually the living conditions of blacks in the southern plantations were better than those of 'free' white factory workers in the North, because of the better environment contributing to their physical health, and the working hours being shorter.Quote:
And don't forget why Liberia was founded. Until his death, Lincoln wished to deport or 'colonise' blacks outside the USA.Quote:
Last edited by faintsmile1992; January 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM.
WTF does Ayn Rand and Demo's have to do with economic theory? Ayn Rand was a bad writer with a shaky command of the English language, I'm not 100% sure what Demo's is but am fairly certain that he, they, or it had little to do with the development of socialism as a philosophy independent of the Communist Manifesto. Furthermore I fail to see how a subject as complex and nuanced as political economics can be reduced to a poll containing figures who at best have nothing to do with the subject. The poll should have been Friedrich Hayek vs. John Maynard Keynes, though I seriously doubt anyone who has posted in this thread has ever read The Road to Serfdom or General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. For those of us who actually do have an understanding of modern, political economic theory reading this thread is literally hell incarnate. The level of ignorance is almost incomprehensible. Seriously, wtf does slavery have to do with capitalism or socialism x_X On behalf of everyone who has ever studied politics and economics as an academic subject I demand an apology.
Please be aware that the debate proposed is actually not a debate about the merits of socialism (a meaningless term) and capitalism, but between a schism in capitalism that developed in response to the Great Depression. Keynes believed that in times of greatest need, when private spending can no longer maintain adequate levels of employment and production, that temporary increases government spending can substitute for lost private sector spending, bolstering the economy and staving off deflation until the economy fully recovers. As the economy recovers private sector spending will gradually supplant public spending with the role of the government decreasing. Hayek agreed with Keynes that the business cycle was merciless and that some government intervention was necessary to curtail the worst abuses of the market. But he believed that government spending would ultimately create an unsustainable bubble destined to burst and cause further economic harm. Both Keynes and Hayek were undoubtedly capitalists and believers in the free market, neither being socialist. Nor would anyone with even a cursory knowledge of economics call liberals socialists. The media and the ignorant alone would make that assertion. Modern disagreement between the American Democratic and Republican Party, as well as the United Kingdoms Labor and Conservative Party is actually a disagreement between Keynes and Hayek, not between socialism and capitalism.
Its always funny when the American right call Obama a socialist lol.
That is just politics, a pejorative [at least in the minds of Americans] that might turn voters away. Similarly liberal's will try and paint conservatives as heartless, oligarchic shills for the elite, if not down right fascistic. That is merely the semiotics of campaigning, not to be confused with actual political discourse.
American liberals and their European counterparts due incorporate some degree of Fabian socialism into capitalism but remain fundamentally capitalist. While the Republican party does have a strong Libertarian that does not mean they advocate a particularly purist version of capitalism. Nobody advocates capitalism exactly as Adam Smith or David Ricardo theorized it: the market is merciless, as cruel to the producer as it is to consumer. Most businesses wish to do everything possible to protect themselves from the open market. Monopolies, government subsidies, research and development all come to mind as ways businesses protect themselves from market forces. SOPA/PIPA come to mind as fantastic examples of anti-capitalist legislation. The market has spoken: data must be free and anything that can be turned into data will be free whether manga, anime, music, movies, games, or software. The marginal cost of uploading music from a PC to the internet is free, the software needed is included with all computers, and no technical knowledge is needed. Posting data to the internet has a clear competitive advantage even before factoring in that the end product is free. The industry is hampered by a business model developed in a different economic epoch yet to be updated to account for modern media and communications. SOPA/PIPA was an attempt to tilt competitive advantage back towards the industry, to undermine market forces. Had it passed it would not have worked, the entertainment industry will be at a permanent disadvantage until they change their business model.
Last edited by Kaiten; January 24, 2012 at 01:13 PM.
here's another interesting discussion:
The Darwinian Economy