StarGateWars Forums

fair enough

I'm agreed. The common man oughta rise against 'the machine'.

Lol there's no better economy system than capitalism...means that rising against the system is asking for worse situation, but that's usually what the leaders who scream anticapitalism speeches have in mind anyway.
I'm so waiting for "but in theory there are better systems", well, we all know how it ended when they were applied to nations (don't talk about regions or villages or small tribes structures, I'm talking about a nation, much more complex to lead)

I voted yes, i aren't ashamed for one moment, i have enough money to survive and to keep my children safe and healthy, i work a job that pays just enough so that i can save a little for emergencies and i pay my taxes in the hope that the NHS and other such services will continue to be free and accessible to all. A socialist society attempts to create equality whereas a capitalist society promotes inequality, greed and acquisition. I am far far happier accepting that Britain has some lazy pockets of society who syphon the good will and hard work of the people by producing generation after generation of scroungers than i would be if i lived in America where there are pockets of society who can't even afford medicine. I find that notion to be absolutely abhorent.

Just so that anyone who wants to can accurately attempt to dismiss (or celebrate indeed) my particular political/social standpoint; I am a proud, card carrying member of the Fabian Socialist Party.

At the end of the day, it wasn't the socialist agenda that caused the financial crash. It was the capitalist agenda.

As for "there's no better economic system than capitalism" that is the biggest amount of nonsense i've ever heard. If capital is economic why do we need inflation? You really need to remember what these words mean instead of just allowing the words to evoke in you the notions that capitalism has brainwashed you into.

Oh, i also might like to add that in my 37 years of existing i have never had a single penny of credit or a bank account. Yet, because of this, i've had people telling me i'm not fit to be a parent because i can't possibly be properly providing for my children if i don't have access to a line of credit. Line of credit? What absolute nonsense. I have access to a very reliable source of credit; its in my wall safe thank-you very much.

GhostyGoo wrote:I voted yes, i aren't ashamed for one moment, i have enough money to survive and to keep my children safe and healthy, i work a job that pays just enough so that i can save a little for emergencies and i pay my taxes in the hope that the NHS and other such services will continue to be free and accessible to all. A socialist society attempts to create equality whereas a capitalist society promotes inequality, greed and acquisition. I am far far happier accepting that Britain has some lazy pockets of society who syphon the good will and hard work of the people by producing generation after generation of scroungers than i would be if i lived in America where there are pockets of society who can't even afford medicine. I find that notion to be absolutely abhorent.

There we disagree, obviously. I am utterly against people who benefit without giving anything in return. That's why I greatly dislike socialism, where you force egalitarianism and create generations of people who will do nothing from cradle to grave and still be able to live with minimum. Socialism creates poverty for all, sure there you don't feel jealous or unequal with your neighbor lol.

Just so that anyone who wants to can accurately attempt to dismiss (or celebrate indeed) my particular political/social standpoint; I am a proud, card carrying member of the Fabian Socialist Party.

At the end of the day, it wasn't the socialist agenda that caused the financial crash. It was the capitalist agenda.

Countries that followed the socialist agenda weren't always the best in economy results eh, it's funny how emerging countries started to compete clearly when they adopted the capitalism system (who would believe China is still communist in its economy?)

As for "there's no better economic system than capitalism" that is the biggest amount of nonsense i've ever heard. If capital is economic why do we need inflation? You really need to remember what these words mean instead of just allowing the words to evoke in you the notions that capitalism has brainwashed you into.

[/quote]
Ah finally we have the local smart man "you are brainwashed, but I am not". Lol I like these people who like to withdraw themselves from the pack just because they are living in alternate-theory ideas, think that others are "brainwashed" while themselves are "in the right". You know what I meant, the modern markets society I was talking about, not necessarily the financial system, but the "capitalism" system as a whole.
I am not from the UK or the US (or any of the countries whose media are vastly in favor of capitalism), so your argument about brainwash by media about capitalism is null!

Woah there cowboy! You can't go around hitting me with your wallet

If you don't understand the meaning of words you shouldn't use them - you have to be very responsible where words are concerned; they are humankind's greatest asset but can easily become your worst affliction.

An ecenomy is defined by careful and thrifty and management of resources in most dictionaries i've read (and yes sad as it may be i've read a few) and its etymology stems from the Greek "oikonomos" which means to administrate a household. I'm sorry but capitalism has not been managing our resources at all unless you feel that "careful and thrifty management of resources" means hording them into caches while simultaneously "loading the cards" of the system to ensure that the common person has little or no chance to ever experience real economic stability.

If you think that as a Fabian i promote egalitarianism you are quite mistaken; you are always going to have to have a degree of meritocratic influence in a human system otherwise what do you aspire to? I am simply sick to my eyes of people being bred into monetary aspirations equally as much as i am sick of people being bred into laziness. You claim that socialism creates laziness well i can agree to that but i think that capitalism creates more of it through a greater amount of people who simply cannot aspire to anything because they think that they will never have enough material wealth.

No creature that crawls on this earth has anymore right to it than anyone else but, as a Fabian, of course i understand that if a person invents a machine that ploughs a field in half the time they desrve a reward for their ingenuity; i just do not agree that material wealth is the only way to compensate them for their efforts.

Anyone who understands properly the knife-edge that paper money and credit is balanced upon also understands that the fractional reserve system only has about a decade left in it before the amount owed cannot ever be paid back. That is why we are seeing riots and that is why the strongest capitalist countries out there are (if they haven't already; funny you mentioned China) slowly but surely removing our civil liberties.

I'm not a conspiracist, I'm more like a modern day Nostradamus (if i could be so bold). I've lived long enough and am intelligent enough to have notifced a generational pattern emerging and i make predictions based on exactly that. I predicted the economic crash not because some freak in a baseball cap ate burgers all week but because i understand what hedge funds and derivative market positions are. Before it all happened i advised several people i know to buy gold with any savings they had and i told them it was because America was selling boxes full of smaller boxes and that i had a sneaking suspicion that those smaller boxes were quite empty and nobody had bothered to check. I was exactly right.

GhostyGoo wrote:Woah there cowboy! You can't go around hitting me with your wallet

If you don't understand the meaning of words you shouldn't use them - you have to be very responsible where words are concerned; they are humankind's greatest asset but can easily become your worst affliction.

An ecenomy is defined by careful and thrifty and management of resources in most dictionaries i've read (and yes sad as it may be i've read a few) and its etymology stems from the Greek "oikonomos" which means to administrate a household. I'm sorry but capitalism has not been managing our resources at all unless you feel that "careful and thrifty management of resources" means hording them into caches while simultaneously "loading the cards" of the system to ensure that the common person has little or no chance to ever experience real economic stability.

this is a perfect time to point out the inherent weakness of a capitalist system by showing that the so called investors use the same funds to power multiple different agenda's whilst at the same time losing little to nothing,this was furthered by the greatest transfer of wealth in American history, the bailouts...A band-aid on a bullet wound to cover a system that has collapsed in on itself the very idea of capitalism is based on Darwinism where only the strongest survive, believing the rhetoric that these companies are to big to fail is a socialist property and has no place in a truly capitalist system. I completely disagree with any form of government aid to failing business that is not their place.

GhostyGoo wrote:If you think that as a Fabian i promote egalitarianism you are quite mistaken; you are always going to have to have a degree of meritocratic influence in a human system otherwise what do you aspire to? I am simply sick to my eyes of people being bred into monetary aspirations equally as much as i am sick of people being bred into laziness. You claim that socialism creates laziness well i can agree to that but i think that capitalism creates more of it through a greater amount of people who simply cannot aspire to anything because they think that they will never have enough material wealth.

Again I find myself in agreement with you Goo, although despite most the obvious dislike you have for capitalism because I believe despite the inherent flaws in it, I have yet to see a more practical system put forth, unless you want to go back to the barter system where everyone makes up their own values depending on their needs at the time, which I certainly would not mind. The very idea of a meritocracy though will have compounded problems generations down the road when people who had nothing to do with designing that machine will claim that because their grandfather did it makes them somehow more important, that is inherent in human nature. We may all be created equal but society tells us that some are more equal than others, and that will take generations if ever to change.

GhostyGoo wrote:No creature that crawls on this earth has anymore right to it than anyone else but, as a Fabian, of course i understand that if a person invents a machine that ploughs a field in half the time they desrve a reward for their ingenuity; i just do not agree that material wealth is the only way to compensate them for their efforts.

If not monetary compensation what do you propose, three chickens and a duck? I joke of course but soon that may be what it comes down to, because....

GhostyGoo wrote:Anyone who understands properly the knife-edge that paper money and credit is balanced upon also understands that the fractional reserve system only has about a decade left in it before the amount owed cannot ever be paid back. That is why we are seeing riots and that is why the strongest capitalist countries out there are (if they haven't already; funny you mentioned China) slowly but surely removing our civil liberties.

...paper money is a horrendous concept, the gold standard is the only currency which will retain value regardless, a dollar bill isn't even worth the paper it is printed on anymore, and yet if you look closely which most people do not, it is actually a Federal Reserve Note worth 1 dollar and that is only because the Federal Reserve maintains the idea that they have the gold to back it up, which is no longer true hence the spiral downwards. We are faced with a huge dilemma either people wake up and realize that they have all been drinking the same kool-aid or we find ourselves faced with an economic apocalypse the likes of which may destroy the well established social order which has plagued humankind for centuries

GhostyGoo wrote:I'm not a conspiracist, I'm more like a modern day Nostradamus (if i could be so bold). I've lived long enough and am intelligent enough to have notifced a generational pattern emerging and i make predictions based on exactly that. I predicted the economic crash not because some freak in a baseball cap ate burgers all week but because i understand what hedge funds and derivative market positions are. Before it all happened i advised several people i know to buy gold with any savings they had and i told them it was because America was selling boxes full of smaller boxes and that i had a sneaking suspicion that those smaller boxes were quite empty and nobody had bothered to check. I was exactly right.

You bring up excellent arguments but offer no solutions Goo, and that I think is the flaw, is there a solution? Socialism is only a stop gap because given time human nature will win out and the more equal people will again position themselves above the herd, it is inevitable and I have no clue how to stop it. Human Nature is a beast that none of us can control not even with pretty words and fancy hats.

I don't follow any of it.. i'm a pure practitioner of Shaunism which is a complicated mess of fascism, communism and as with both of the above pro dictatorships.

The economic crash was purely capitalism. It was a pissin contest of the banks who needed to own as many debtors as they could (toxic mortgages) so the bosses who agreed to all this could pay themselves fat pays and make more money for the winging shareholders and then when they all realised that they did not ACTUALLY have as much money as they claimed to it all went to pot and the big property investment bubble went pop.

The only way I can really see socialism coming into play here is the ideals that everyone should be allowed to get their own home without actually having the money on hand to do it.

Ha! Angnoch. Very good Sir. I don't have the answers i'm afraid, it is enough for me to provide warnings; solutions, very good, i didn't even get a GSCE and you want solutions? I'm afraid that, if it was not for the love of my little children, i would advise you to blow the whole human race to kingdom come and allow nature to have another go at it all before we lose another m-class planet to its primary star. Who knows? Maybe next time around nature will evolve a species to the top of the food chain that exists in harmony with its environment as opposed to this parasitic state of affairs we find ourselves in. I'm very much in agreement with "Smiths" when it comes to the human species. I'm afraid i have very very little faith in humanity my friend, i fear there is very little of it left. For the most part i do not believe that we have any such right to discriminate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom with such impunity.

Capitalism is, as Angnoch has pointed out, pure hypocrisy now. Thanks to the devices behind the financial crash it is now a new and sickening breed of capitalism which ought to be called bailed out capitalism; socially funded capitalism. It is sick. The sour faced cretins who crowed on and on in the eighties about how capitalism should be allowed to continue lassez faire were given, to a huge degree, what they wanted and the result was these toxic market positions backed by false derivatives. The result was that, in the end, when the bottom fell out they came crying and begging for us to put our hands in our pockets and vote for government intervention. I would have stated and restated an emphatic NO. I would have said, "Lassez faire is lassez fair, you are on your own". I would not have feared the collapse of the private banking and credit sectors, i would have known that the poor couldn't possibly get any poorer and that perhaps it was time for a cataclysm. Perhaps it was time to stop this sick game of musical chairs houses. End debt, foreclosure, poverty. Britain has an Empress for goodness sake, and she has a government, it would not have gotten so bad as the state would have immediately claimed ownership of resources. It is what would happen if we encountered a natural disaster like a tidal wave or earthquake; it is what would happen in the case of a ballistic strike against us. Any of these things could occur and force our position to change drastically and immediately. I, personally, would prefer a financial cataclysm than a natural or ballistic one!

But no. The governments of the western world were mostly either too scared to bite the bullet or had a massive financial stake in matters and so we, the common person, are asked to work harder for less and longer and the process will begin again...with one less chair.

Semper wrote:i'm a pure practitioner of Shaunism which is a complicated mess of fascism, communism and as with both of the above pro dictatorships.

You mean you are a British Royalist?

Might be worth watching it all crumble to the ground eh Goo?

@Goo. I do support having the royal family but I would not have them ruling again. I'd do it myself. XD

would you not quickly be frustrated over the countless fools you'd have to deal with?

Naturally, yes.. fortunately I am blessed with many friends. Although i believe I would take the Italian name Mussolini used. Il Duche.

there are very, very few examples of a pure capitalist society, government, or nation in the world;

and this has not really changed much in decades...

I could probably say the same applies to pure socialism...
though the changes have been more recent, I think.

capitalism as a whole is the best system, but as has been quoted here already, power leads to corruption. and that corruption leads to those with "connections" but no motivation to jobs that pay way more than they should, and those with the motivation to work hard for their dollar to get stuck at the bottom.

You SHOULD get paid based on work ethic and skill sets and capitalism is one of the best ways for that to happen, but corruption decreases the correlation between pay and how you work, and instead you can have twice the work ethic (assuming it's measurable) and more skills, but you still lose the job to someone less qualified because they had connections. (and/or because the competing applicant was of a minority of some type and a valid reason to not hire him was prevalent, such as hiring for a ditch digging crew, and not wanting to hire the 72 year old man to shovel dirt for 8 hours a day, but you have to find a reason to not hire him over the more physically fit 25 year old without using AGE as a factor) (and yes the example is a situation that occurred in real life with a buddy who was hiring field workers for a wire laying crew)