Yes, that was my point.
But that’s not what happened. After the economy showed signs of life, they turned their attention to the deficit, and raised taxes and interest rates. What happened? The economy tanked again. Now, when they really DID start spending more money than they ever had before, the economy came right out of recession.
[quote]Devildog07843 wrote:
The whole movie was biased and based on a traitor. Every Marine was stereotyped in the worst way possible and at a time of war what were they thinking? References to the metal being valuable and why we are there is like saying Iraq for oil. Its amazing how all in one it bashed capitalism and the military while they are using the movie to get rich. Amazing right? Only in America because you do not see other countries bashing thier own people do you? [/quote]
You are a fucking idiot.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:And again, not really.
Capitalism for me is short hand for free markets, property rights and a government that stays out of micromanaging the economy.[/quote]
I thought I made this clear, but I’ll just come out and say it: I don’t care what capitalism is “to you.” I’m talking about what capitalism is.
Oh, except for crises in 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929…
No rebranding necessary. It frequently does that all on its own. Just because you don’t like to acknowledge it doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to talk about it. This is what I’m talking about: you’re constantly trying to narrow the definition and put in all kinds of exceptions.
No, that’s the point which you’re trying to extract from what I’m saying. I’m saying capitalism goes to shit.
It doesn’t matter how you understand it, it matters how it happens in the real world. Oh yeah, that thing. Uncle Mises doesn’t bring it up much, but yeah, it’s important.
[/quote]
So, basically you call fascism capitalism and therefore capitalism bad.
Cool.
No alternatives, no reasoning, some hilarious reasoning coming from a socialist…
So it “does not work in the real world”, huh?
R P MacCarter:
What part do you not understand?
market economy == capitalism
command economy == socialism, communism, fascism, nazism, etc.
In a realistic world there can only be two fundamental options: one where people are free to choose or one where the choice is made for them. It is the attempt to mix the two options that really fucks shit up; however, forcing people to accept choices by command can only work in a world of robots or slaves.
We might imagine what the Latin motto of that society might be:
Is nox noctis vestri optio es piscis piscis.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Valor wrote:
This movie was written by an idiot. There isn’t one original thought in the entire thing. Oh sure it looks good… But its an empty shells.
What really pissed me off though is the use of White men and the military as the bad guys. Is JC unaware that,GULP…the military DOES WHAT the Congress and the C-in-C tell us to? Is he unaware that the, mostly DEMOCRATIC, Congress VOTED TO GO INTO IRAQ?
I guess that idiot Bush just fooled everyone, right?
Fuck him.[/quote]
I rip this movie apart over in GAL forum. And indeed your criticisms are very valid.
It looks like the movie was a collaboration between John Kerry and Al Gore.
[/quote]
You know, I did not watch this movie, but I noticed this same kind of thing in the horrible kid flick Wall-E. Not only extremely boring, but obviously left wing slant. I fucking hate politics in my entertainment. They thick we’re to dumb to notice it and they can sneak some subliminal message in there somehow unnoticed. If you are making a move with a political message, let me know so I can avoid it. This goes for the right too, I don’t want to think about politics 24/7. It’s agony on the cranium.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
The real issue was leaving things completely open to interpretation. Some see a political message. I see lazy storytelling.
[/quote]
This is a pet peeve of mine since the new Star Wars trilogy.
You have several gazillions for special effects and not one or two stinking millions for a decent screenplay?
Really?
[/quote]
Well in the defense of Star Wars, it was a much more difficult task since we knew how it was going to turn out. I did like them, but the 4-6 were better stories.---- “I am your father!” …“Nooooooooooooooo!” ← Now that’s twist.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
The real issue was leaving things completely open to interpretation. Some see a political message. I see lazy storytelling.
[/quote]
This is a pet peeve of mine since the new Star Wars trilogy.
You have several gazillions for special effects and not one or two stinking millions for a decent screenplay?
Really?
[/quote]
Well in the defense of Star Wars, it was a much more difficult task since we knew how it was going to turn out. I did like them, but the 4-6 were better stories.---- “I am your father!” …“Nooooooooooooooo!” ← Now that’s twist.[/quote]
You are a Sith!
I know all Sith are liars!
What?
You want me to kill all the, ahem, “younglings” !?!
Allrighty then!
[quote]orion wrote:So, basically you call fascism capitalism and therefore capitalism bad.
Cool.
No alternatives, no reasoning, some hilarious reasoning coming from a socialist…
So it “does not work in the real world”, huh?[/quote]
Pretty much. The system of private property based on wage labor is intact, which is actually all you need for capitalism.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
R P MacCarter:
What part do you not understand?
market economy == capitalism
command economy == socialism, communism, fascism, nazism, etc.[/quote]
Sorry. That’s wrong. The free market has absolutely nothing to do with private property.
This is all a very amusing philosophical diversion, but the real world is more complicated than this.
Ryan P. McCarter,
Can you please define what you think capitalism means? Because if it’s not what orion previously mentioned then wtf is it? I’m seriously curious.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:So, basically you call fascism capitalism and therefore capitalism bad.
Cool.
No alternatives, no reasoning, some hilarious reasoning coming from a socialist…
So it “does not work in the real world”, huh?[/quote]
Pretty much. The system of private property based on wage labor is intact, which is actually all you need for capitalism.
[/quote]
So if you could enlighten us who does the trading in a free market without private property?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
R P MacCarter:
What part do you not understand?
market economy == capitalism
command economy == socialism, communism, fascism, nazism, etc.[/quote]
Sorry. That’s wrong. The free market has absolutely nothing to do with private property.
[/quote]
The market economy has everything to do with private property. It could never have arisen without it. How else could people have decided what goods and services to produce, consume, or exchange if they did not have some sort of original property to begin with? The market economy could not have arisen by command. Of course, I would love for you to describe for us how it could be possible; but seeing as how you have yet to explain any of your wonderful, Utopian theories I doubt you will (or can).
And we do not really need the word “free” to describe a market economy – it is a superfluous term. The market is either “free” or it is under someone else’s command and hence is not a market but rather a warehouse full of wasted junk that nobody needs or wants.
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter,
Can you please define what you think capitalism means? Because if it’s not what orion previously mentioned then wtf is it? I’m seriously curious.[/quote]
Orion constantly changes his definition of capitalism in such a way as to absolve it of all responsibility for its many deleterious effects. Capitalism is a set of economic and social relations that follow from private ownership and control over the means of production and the utilization of wage labor.
[quote]orion wrote:So if you could enlighten us who does the trading in a free market without private property?
[/quote]
Companies.
I’m sorry that you cannot see past your programming. The free market can exist whether enterprises are privately owned, or owned jointly their workers, or some combination. This is pretty obvious if you just think about it for a minute. This is how Mondragon works.
Furthermore, I have no utopian theories. Though you, orion, and the rest of the libertarians do.
OK, if you say so.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:So if you could enlighten us who does the trading in a free market without private property?
[/quote]
Companies.
[/quote]
Owned by whom?
Who do they sell to?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter,
Can you please define what you think capitalism means? Because if it’s not what orion previously mentioned then wtf is it? I’m seriously curious.[/quote]
Orion constantly changes his definition of capitalism in such a way as to absolve it of all responsibility for its many deleterious effects. Capitalism is a set of economic and social relations that follow from private ownership and control over the means of production and the utilization of wage labor.
[/quote]
I have never changed my definition.
It is just that when you point at “market failure” I point out that the market for money is nonexistent.
That is not a change of definitions but accepting the reality that interest rates are not the product of market forces but of price fixing.
Since that is prima facie true and since it should not even be necessary to point that out, I think it is highly unfair to claim that I “redefine capitalism” when I point out the glaringly obvious.
You are concerned with superficialities like the interest structure on top of an ever expanding money supply, when that bubble is exploding in our faces and the corrections predicted by the Austrian school need to take place.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m sorry that you cannot see past your programming. The free market can exist whether enterprises are privately owned, or owned jointly their workers, or some combination. This is pretty obvious if you just think about it for a minute. This is how Mondragon works.
Furthermore, I have no utopian theories. Though you, orion, and the rest of the libertarians do.
OK, if you say so.
[/quote]
Plus, Mondragon is not socialism.
It is a private company with a unique owner structure.
So if you want to use it as an example for more socialism, it would have never been allowed to develop under any form of “socialism” so far.
Yet, its seems to do quite well in even a semi-free market.
Yay, capitalism, which even allows for a kibbuz if it is competitive.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:So if you could enlighten us who does the trading in a free market without private property?
[/quote]
Companies.
[/quote]
Owned by whom?
Who do they sell to?
[/quote]
The workers, and consumers, respectively.
[quote]orion wrote:I have never changed my definition.
It is just that when you point at “market failure” I point out that the market for money is nonexistent.
That is not a change of definitions but accepting the reality that interest rates are not the product of market forces but of price fixing.[/quote]
See, there you go. The US has a central bank, therefore, anything bad that happens is the central bank’s fault and has nothing to do with financial markets getting prices wrong. You are constantly making qualifications like this.
In fact, as I pointed out earlier and which you ignored, the Federal Reserve significantly reduced the expansion of the money supply at the same time the bubble was inflating, so that at its peak, it was nearly constant. In addition, you ignore the other effects influencing prices, zeroing in on the convenient (but of course, incorrect) target.