Warhippy Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 As usual you hit the nail on the head mate , as you have pointed out many times on this forum damn those scandinavian countries for looking after their citizens. Yes but we live in a time where people still live with the Mcarthyism belief that Socialist means soviet means communist means the big red machine is coming over the bering strait Those same people with that same mentality that say and believe marijuana will make you a drug crazed rapist and murderer. People truly have NO idea what socialism means and bringing up the fact they live in what is basically to some extent a socialist country in canada leaves them flabbergasted. This belief and fear of "socialism" is what keeps parties like the NDP, Greens and many independents from ever reaching office let alone power. Sadly this si just fine for the 2 party system in Canada and the 2 party system in the USA. Sure there are other choices but scream union loving socialist and *GASP* the vote goes red or blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Eh? His last sentence couldn't be anymore correct. You bet, you've got to be pretty dumb to not see that he was right on a couple of points. A little bit of reading the history not taught in schools would do some people good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes but we live in a time where people still live with the Mcarthyism belief that Socialist means soviet means communist means the big red machine is coming over the bering strait Those same people with that same mentality that say and believe marijuana will make you a drug crazed rapist and murderer. People truly have NO idea what socialism means and bringing up the fact they live in what is basically to some extent a socialist country in canada leaves them flabbergasted. This belief and fear of "socialism" is what keeps parties like the NDP, Greens and many independents from ever reaching office let alone power. Sadly this si just fine for the 2 party system in Canada and the 2 party system in the USA. Sure there are other choices but scream union loving socialist and *GASP* the vote goes red or blue. I believe it's all smoke and mirrors, because in any given system there is corruption. It's human nature to be greedy and different types of government are just a way of puting a different face on the same monster. Say what you will but power corrupts. The true systems in behind the illusion is probably more despot or a plutocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 The issue is capitalism is supposed to have checks and balances. That's what Adam Smith wrote about. Supply and demand is just one concept. The issue with capitalism is through the media people are being brainwashed that the checks and balances are somehow bad. What happened in the 1980's corporations (and people in government) got wise and started through marketing, advertising, and through spin doctors and downplaying things that are unsafe, poor quality, etc. They also had convinced governments that regulation stifles capitalism. This is not the case, regulation is meant to make sure the food we eat is safe, job sites are safe, our transportation industry has safe vehicles on air/sea/ground. Large lobby groups put pressure on government that the industries can monitor themselves. Well that's just the fox saying he'll guard the chicken coop. Add to this anti union sentiment (Some of which is justified, some is not). Now the big breakdown of capitalism is the two principles that run it. The invisible hand of competition, and building a superior product, you will succeed and others that don't adapt will go out of business. Once again in the 1980's corporate executives adapted "The Ancient Art of War" to business theory. Now you have a war footing mixed with capitalism. But capitalism already had things to make the marketplace go. When you declare war your taking out the competition. That's one part of the scale removed. Then in the mid-90's instead of innovation leading your company to better profits, or you could start a company and make good profits. Large firms would just buy out the smaller firms so they make the profit. This is what's leading us down a very bad path. You can't have "The Ancient Art of War" and "The wealth of nations" both together. Combined with more and more deregulation, vanishing resources, politicians who only go where the money is. This is whats leading us right now. The system is broken. But we need leaders who are strong enough to restore the balance. Bring the power back to the middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 The issue is capitalism is supposed to have checks and balances. That's what Adam Smith wrote about. Supply and demand is just one concept. The issue with capitalism is through the media people are being brainwashed that the checks and balances are somehow bad. What happened in the 1980's corporations (and people in government) got wise and started through marketing, advertising, and through spin doctors and downplaying things that are unsafe, poor quality, etc. They also had convinced governments that regulation stifles capitalism. This is not the case, regulation is meant to make sure the food we eat is safe, job sites are safe, our transportation industry has safe vehicles on air/sea/ground. Large lobby groups put pressure on government that the industries can monitor themselves. Well that's just the fox saying he'll guard the chicken coop. Add to this anti union sentiment (Some of which is justified, some is not). Now the big breakdown of capitalism is the two principles that run it. The invisible hand of competition, and building a superior product, you will succeed and others that don't adapt will go out of business. Once again in the 1980's corporate executives adapted "The Ancient Art of War" to business theory. Now you have a war footing mixed with capitalism. But capitalism already had things to make the marketplace go. When you declare war your taking out the competition. That's one part of the scale removed. Then in the mid-90's instead of innovation leading your company to better profits, or you could start a company and make good profits. Large firms would just buy out the smaller firms so they make the profit. This is what's leading us down a very bad path. You can't have "The Ancient Art of War" and "The wealth of nations" both together. Combined with more and more deregulation, vanishing resources, politicians who only go where the money is. This is whats leading us right now. The system is broken. But we need leaders who are strong enough to restore the balance. Bring the power back to the middle class. Where are you getting this "deregulation" and "checks and balances" nonsense from? If you notice, socialists tend to cite Asian countries being "exploited" and point the finger toward capitalism. The issue with cheap products coming from abroad produced with slave wages is thanks to free trade agreements. Last I checked government making laws steering an economy a specific direction has nothing to do with capitalism. Yet the criticism of capitalism remains consistent even with increased government intervention into the economy (and ???? it up even more too) in the US and Canada. Anyways, logical discussion in a "Rothschild alien NWO" conspiracy nut thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Where are you getting this "deregulation" and "checks and balances" nonsense from? If you notice, socialists tend to cite Asian countries being "exploited" and point the finger toward capitalism. The issue with cheap products coming from abroad produced with slave wages is thanks to free trade agreements. Last I checked government making laws steering an economy a specific direction has nothing to do with capitalism. Yet the criticism of capitalism remains consistent even with increased government intervention into the economy (and ???? it up even more too) in the US and Canada. Anyways, logical discussion in a "Rothschild alien NWO" conspiracy nut thread. Note the word "socialists" and the context in which it is used. Note how Capitalism and Free Trade agreements are separated in this argument. Further note how said government intervention is a stand alone comment and in no way touches upon how governments have in fact de-regulated banks and industries while eroding workers rights and at the same time making it easier and mroe cost effective for corporations to gain the upper hand in all things. And sadly on the backs of the middle class and working poor. This ladies and gentlemen is obfuscation, deflection and completely indiciative of the ignorant mindset dominating the political arena today. Feed the masses enough bullsh*t and they start believing it tastes good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 A few things... 1) There is no way one single family could ever own that much wealth. They would need to own a substantial amount of the property on the planet for that to be true. You can look up who owns property. That is public knowledge. Anyone can see who's name is on title at any specific property by going to your land title office. Think about how much property there is in Vancouver. Add up the value of all the houses, condos, commercial properties, etc....that's one city. Even the ultra rich, individually, own a very tiny fraction of the total wealth in the world. 2) Rich people do not "hoard" wealth. They invest it. If you kept all of your money hoarded in some giant scrooge McDuck vault, inflation and expenses would eat into it very quickly. Rich people stay rich by wisely investing their money. 3) The Scandinavian countries are not a socialist paradise. Most maintain their economic position through heavy amounts of offshore oil and gas drilling. The ocean around Scandinavia is rich with massive fossil fuel deposits. Also here is a list of countries by tax rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates Canada and the US are near the top. The tax rate in places like New York City far exceed those in anywhere in Scandinavia. Many countries in Scandinavia do offer things like free or even paid schooling. They, however, strictly control who gets into University. If you do not show educational aptitude by the 9th or 10th grade, you get diverted into a trade school. They also limit how many students are in each program....so basically, they aren't letting huge numbers of people major in the liberal arts, like in Canada. Most Scandinavian countries are also becoming more and more conservative. Sweden, Norway, and Finland all have conservative governments in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 David Green, billionaire, owner of Hobby Lobby, started off making picture frames in his garage after borrowing money from a friend to get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Also here is a list of countries by tax rates: http://en.wikipedia....es_by_tax_rates Canada and the US are near the top. The tax rate in places like New York City far exceed those in anywhere in Scandinavia. If you only look at max individual tax rates, which is not very relevant when you don't know the bracket cutoffs. The individual min tax rate for Sweden is 28.89%, while for Canada and US it's 0%. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just trying to clarify your point. Corporate tax wise, Canada is average and the US is way down there. Also, I'm glad that Scandinavia only lets in kids with successful academic records to go to Universities, it is the fair way. Trades schools are setup to help kids get jobs when they graduate with lots of apprenticeship opportunities, unlike here where schools essentially don't give a crap if you get a job or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 David Green, billionaire, owner of Hobby Lobby, started off making picture frames in his garage after borrowing money from a friend to get started. Yeah I think most sensible people don't have issues with self-made millionaires or billionaires, its the sliver spooned ones that people hate. I personally believe there needs to be an inheritance tax or something. I praise the self-made ones that went from rags to riches they are people we should be inspired by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 A few things... 1) There is no way one single family could ever own that much wealth. They would need to own a substantial amount of the property on the planet for that to be true. You can look up who owns property. That is public knowledge. Anyone can see who's name is on title at any specific property by going to your land title office. Think about how much property there is in Vancouver. Add up the value of all the houses, condos, commercial properties, etc....that's one city. Even the ultra rich, individually, own a very tiny fraction of the total wealth in the world. 2) Rich people do not "hoard" wealth. They invest it. If you kept all of your money hoarded in some giant scrooge McDuck vault, inflation and expenses would eat into it very quickly. Rich people stay rich by wisely investing their money. 3) The Scandinavian countries are not a socialist paradise. Most maintain their economic position through heavy amounts of offshore oil and gas drilling. The ocean around Scandinavia is rich with massive fossil fuel deposits. Also here is a list of countries by tax rates: http://en.wikipedia....es_by_tax_rates Canada and the US are near the top. The tax rate in places like New York City far exceed those in anywhere in Scandinavia. Many countries in Scandinavia do offer things like free or even paid schooling. They, however, strictly control who gets into University. If you do not show educational aptitude by the 9th or 10th grade, you get diverted into a trade school. They also limit how many students are in each program....so basically, they aren't letting huge numbers of people major in the liberal arts, like in Canada. Most Scandinavian countries are also becoming more and more conservative. Sweden, Norway, and Finland all have conservative governments in power. 1) I don't think any reasonable person here believes the claims in the OP regarding the amount of money. It's much the same as the Cartel thread. There simply isn't that amount of money in the world. In fact, these are good litmus tests to identify who has a good grasp on world economics. What should not be in dispute is that there are individuals and families that control EXORBITANT wealth. Wealth which is no longer serving their own interests of personal use and is being accumulated at an ever increasing rate. This wealth, being a closed system, is funnelling from the lower tiers into their hands and allows for undue influence in both political and financial affairs as drivers of the direction of the world economy. The super rich frankly own more than their share of the planet's accumulated wealth. 2) You misuse the term hoard in this sense. They are holding and expanding their wealth and much of it is through land ownership. It is invested, for the reasons you point out, but that is a far cry from suggesting that that wealth is producing anything. Rents produce nothing. When invested in multinational corporations in the form of stocks and options it also has no effect but to drive the value of those stocks higher creating an upward economic push. It does not create anything. Those stocks would be held by others if not held by them. All that affects is stock price and not dividends from the actions of the company by it's innovation or product value. In fact, it seems you are trumpeting the 'job creator' myth. That wealth does not enrich the world. People enrich the world by their actions making the rich money not the other way around. 3) You are guilty here of using the same rhetoric that Warhippy points about above by associating any discussion with socialistic systems with Utopianism thereby equating it with radical communism. Wherefore, by the reverse of your argument, is the capitalist paradise? Why would any country not buoy their system with the available resources and materials at their disposal when it benefits the society? Would that not be the suggested action in most systems? Yes, our taxes are high in both Canada and the USA. What reason, then, are they used less efficiently here? What is the mechanism? It isn't because of some economic philosophy of ours that trumps efficient government as the prime affect of the health of the state. Your paragraph regarding admission standards is strange to me. There are national considerations that are up to the electorate regarding how their institutions are operated. I don't consider the cost of universities in the US to be viable either but trade schools and colleges are not a barrier to success whereas economic availability to education is much more so. If a socialist government can have swings to both conservative and liberal over the course of their history it only proves that the democratic system is working. It is not a greater statement on their economic system. The majority of conservative Scanadanavians would still be considered socialists in the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I put this story in the same category as the Drug dealer house with 22 billion dollars in it. Why do people feel the need to throw such ridiculous numbers around just to make a point? Yes, we all understand that this type of capitalism is evil, and that the ultra-rich are all scumbags to tread on the common people in order to amass their obscene fortunes.... ....but we're talking about 700 trillion dollars here... FTR: This is roughly 8 times the estimated GDP of the entire world.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 To decry any benefits from both capitalistic or socialistic philosophy is to be caught in a rhetorical debate that does nothing but draw attention away from those who stand to lose their vast fortunes by the education and strength of the world population. It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice. Deng Xiaoping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabychStache Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 He was thinking of the "Build-a-Bear" conference. There not the same thing? My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgillnuck Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Obviously that number's impossible, so arguing about the article is pointless. But to throw my hat into the ring here: the kind of unchecked capitalism we see with the world's wealthiest people is extremely immoral. These people didn't make their fortunes in a vacuum. The world has a finite amount of resources, and when a few people can hoard billions while others are living and dying on a dollar a day the system is clearly broken. And you can't tell me they earned that wealth either. The playing field is way too uneven for that to be the case. Until everyone gets to enjoy the privilege that we do in North America of both getting a decent education and not having to actually worry about your day-to-day survival, the game is rigged from the start. The vast majority of the world never has a shot at being uber-wealthy, and you can't tell me that whoever invented WhatsApp works harder than a farmer in Myanmar. In a global economy capitalism is no longer merit based so much as it is luck of the draw. Which would be fine if it didn't mean millions have to be destitute so that a few people can be so rich they couldn't spend their money in 10 lifetimes. Personally id like to do what France proposed last year: cap personal wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabychStache Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Personally id like to do what France proposed last year: cap personal wealth. Good luck signing UFAs then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien37 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Dude just stop Let me guess.....you are an attentive watcher of CNN and Fox news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 This is nothing new. The Rothschild, Rockafeller, Albrecht, Du pont, Vanderbilt and Astor families have literally all the money in the world. These families colluded in the 1800's to amass incredible wealth and control the commodities and natural resources of the entire world. Oops forgot the Bilderbergs. The amount being speculated is truly irrelevant, it is obviously higher than anyone of us could imagine and really no one here a has any concept of this kind of wealth so It may as well be 700 trillion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Obviously that number's impossible, so arguing about the article is pointless. But to throw my hat into the ring here: the kind of unchecked capitalism we see with the world's wealthiest people is extremely immoral. These people didn't make their fortunes in a vacuum. The world has a finite amount of resources, and when a few people can hoard billions while others are living and dying on a dollar a day the system is clearly broken. And you can't tell me they earned that wealth either. The playing field is way too uneven for that to be the case. Until everyone gets to enjoy the privilege that we do in North America of both getting a decent education and not having to actually worry about your day-to-day survival, the game is rigged from the start. The vast majority of the world never has a shot at being uber-wealthy, and you can't tell me that whoever invented WhatsApp works harder than a farmer in Myanmar. In a global economy capitalism is no longer merit based so much as it is luck of the draw. Which would be fine if it didn't mean millions have to be destitute so that a few people can be so rich they couldn't spend their money in 10 lifetimes. Personally id like to do what France proposed last year: cap personal wealth. Well I agree with the bolded part, having said that its working smarter not harder that can often bring in wealth.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Note the word "socialists" and the context in which it is used. Note how Capitalism and Free Trade agreements are separated in this argument. Further note how said government intervention is a stand alone comment and in no way touches upon how governments have in fact de-regulated banks and industries while eroding workers rights and at the same time making it easier and mroe cost effective for corporations to gain the upper hand in all things. And sadly on the backs of the middle class and working poor. This ladies and gentlemen is obfuscation, deflection and completely indiciative of the ignorant mindset dominating the political arena today. Feed the masses enough bullsh*t and they start believing it tastes good. Obfuscation, LOL The rise of corporations to dominate the global market was purely government induced. In the USA alone, before these FTA's shifted capital to the rich and shifted menial labour overseas, there were plenty of decent paying unskilled jobs. Now that these brilliant government FTA's are at work, the US has seen itself compete with wages in China, wages the Chinese government purposely keeps low and prevents from rising in order to keep their currency value low and perpetuate their monetary policy. All government caused here. Can't wait to read more of this leftist utopian government-is-the-solution-to-the-world's-problems garbage while ignoring the problems government has caused -- the US is a prototype example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.