NationStates

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

I'm sorry? Charitable contributions come from personal incomes. Not from China.

And those personal incomes are all generated from jobs, those jobs are generated by corporations, blah blah blah, all ties back into China, broski.

Ausgebombt wrote:

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

again with complete BS claims, for one, we're talking private donations too, further, very little of US debt is held by china, under 10%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

According to that China owns about 23.4% of our debt. And is the foremost owner of our debt at about 877.5 billion.

That is not 'very little', hell, just holding 10% of our debt is very bad. VERY BAD. Having just about 1/4 of our debt is even worse.

Fact of the matter is, in my opinion, Capitalism is fine and all, but are you aware that we are currently sucking the metaphorical funstick of a Communist country?

Please read the third word in your link. I'l make it easier for you. GOVERNMENT. We are talking about private donations. Leave this China shit alone.

Ausgebombt wrote:

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

again with complete BS claims, for one, we're talking private donations too, further, very little of US debt is held by china, under 10%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

According to that China owns about 23.4% of our debt. And is the foremost owner of our debt at about 877.5 billion.

That is not 'very little', hell, just holding 10% of our debt is very bad. VERY BAD. Having just about 1/4 of our debt is even worse.

Fact of the matter is, in my opinion, Capitalism is fine and all, but are you aware that we are currently sucking the metaphorical funstick of a Communist country?

China? Communist? Sorry, but

Ausgebombt wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

I'm sorry? Charitable contributions come from personal incomes. Not from China.

And those personal incomes are all generated from jobs, those jobs are generated by corporations, blah blah blah, all ties back into China, broski.

The American jobs are tied to China? Elaborate.

Ausgebombt wrote:

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

again with complete BS claims, for one, we're talking private donations too, further, very little of US debt is held by china, under 10%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

According to that China owns about 23.4% of our debt. And is the foremost owner of our debt at about 877.5 billion.

That is not 'very little', hell, just holding 10% of our debt is very bad. VERY BAD. Having just about 1/4 of our debt is even worse.

Fact of the matter is, in my opinion, Capitalism is fine and all, but are you aware that we are currently sucking the metaphorical funstick of a Communist country?

And we are doing so because of failed socialist policies and foreign interventionism that runs completely parallel to Capitalist thought. The US is taking out debts to pay for it's bloated government spending, not the individual's personal debt, as I said before this is very much an argument against socialism, rather then for it. The USA for all it's capitalist banter is only so much further on the free market index then other mixed markets, too much spending a misguided and misdirected hope of helping the disadvantaged and the complete lunacy of a populace which has discovered it can vote more money to their hands.

Ausgebombt wrote:

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

again with complete BS claims, for one, we're talking private donations too, further, very little of US debt is held by china, under 10%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

According to that China owns about 23.4% of our debt. And is the foremost owner of our debt at about 877.5 billion.

That is not 'very little', hell, just holding 10% of our debt is very bad. VERY BAD. Having just about 1/4 of our debt is even worse.

Fact of the matter is, in my opinion, Capitalism is fine and all, but are you aware that we are currently sucking the metaphorical funstick of a Communist country?

I was clearly referring to gross debt, which at 87.3% of GDP gives China less than 10% (14.4 Trillion * 0.873 =12.57, 877.5/12,570= 0.0698 or 6.98%)

again, this is actually off topic...

If we want to see how this would effect our economy: its only about 6%, so yes, they have financed 6% of our economy, its not great, but its hardly anything they can manipulate us with.

Ausgebombt wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

I'm sorry? Charitable contributions come from personal incomes. Not from China.

And those personal incomes are all generated from jobs, those jobs are generated by corporations, blah blah blah, all ties back into China, broski.

That is an absolutely terrible argument, if this weren't a good computer I'd toss it out of pure WTF'ery. So every US job is dependent on China? I severely doubt it, especially as China is almost entirely employed for the US.

Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Self--Esteem wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

again with complete BS claims, for one, we're talking private donations too, further, very little of US debt is held by china, under 10%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

According to that China owns about 23.4% of our debt. And is the foremost owner of our debt at about 877.5 billion.

That is not 'very little', hell, just holding 10% of our debt is very bad. VERY BAD. Having just about 1/4 of our debt is even worse.

Fact of the matter is, in my opinion, Capitalism is fine and all, but are you aware that we are currently sucking the metaphorical funstick of a Communist country?

China? Communist? Sorry, but

A government that has about a million different procedures you have to sift through to set up a buisness is not Capitalist, if that is what you are implying. The idea has been brought up before that there is no 'pure' political ideology. China is no different.

Please read the third word in your link. I'l make it easier for you. GOVERNMENT. We are talking about private donations. Live this China shit alone.

And what do you think is government, to you, specifically? Yes, the American government might owe money to China, but does that mean it is not Capitalist? After all, is it not the very same institution that has supported a laissez-faire, free-market for centuries?

Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

Ausgebombt wrote:

Self--Esteem wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

Most capitalist large country; USA
Most generous country in terms of charitable contributions which are being borrowed from China; USA

again with complete BS claims, for one, we're talking private donations too, further, very little of US debt is held by china, under 10%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

According to that China owns about 23.4% of our debt. And is the foremost owner of our debt at about 877.5 billion.

That is not 'very little', hell, just holding 10% of our debt is very bad. VERY BAD. Having just about 1/4 of our debt is even worse.

Fact of the matter is, in my opinion, Capitalism is fine and all, but are you aware that we are currently sucking the metaphorical funstick of a Communist country?

China? Communist? Sorry, but

A government that has about a million different procedures you have to sift through to set up a buisness is not Capitalist, if that is what you are implying. The idea has been brought up before that there is no 'pure' political ideology. China is no different.

Please read the third word in your link. I'l make it easier for you. GOVERNMENT. We are talking about private donations. Live this China shit alone.

And what do you think is government, to you, specifically? Yes, the American government might owe money to China, but does that mean it is not Capitalist? After all, is it not the very same institution that has supported a laissez-faire, free-market for centuries?

Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

That's what Communism looks like

http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Cuba
http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/NorthKorea

That's not what Communism looks like

http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/China

Not fully free Capitalism, but definitely not Communism.

When mixed with socialism it can be an OK system.

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

The Adrian Empire is God.

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

The Adrian Empire is God.

Oh of course. But not to the leftists.

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

You credited the first quote to Self-Esteem, it was me, just corrected it for posterities sake

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

The Adrian Empire is God.

Ah, so that is why I find those golden idols of me lined on front door each day, here I though it was a stalker.

Also sigged! This is entirely to be taken out of context

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

You credited the first quote to Self-Esteem, it was me, just corrected it for posterities sake

Done. My apologies. I hate the quoting system here.

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

You credited the first quote to Self-Esteem, it was me, just corrected it for posterities sake

Done. My apologies. I hate the quoting system here.

It was worth it to be inadvertently called God and Barack Obama at the same time

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Ausgebombt wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Also as a point of order, more Americans are employed by small businesses then corporations.

Your sources?

You seem like a devout leftist. So here is god himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucuzYVBlyY

Ahem, that was me, actually

I'm confused, what?

You credited the first quote to Self-Esteem, it was me, just corrected it for posterities sake

I really feel like a virus. Got to be the 3rd time someone accidently put my name above a quote that wasn't mine.

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Offenheim wrote:So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism as you defined it was an unselfish act, to further define it, it is an act taken on by a person with no visible benefit or later profit to the person for the expressed intent of helping another at their own cost.

What we observe is rather not selfless but a concern for their own profit, a poorly balanced proposal would mean they leave with nothing, so to go with the most balanced point is rather selfish, they are only trying to keep as much money as possible, it is just that the majority of people aren't clued into person B's psyche enough to risk anything more then a completely fair deal.

What defines altruism is not reward or potential reward, but rather intent.

If I help out the little old lady next door out of the goodness of my heart without an expectation of reward, it's still an altruistic action even if the little old lady decides to give me some home made cookies for my trouble.

Trotskylvania wrote:

The Adrian Empire wrote:

Offenheim wrote:So freaking define altruism for me. Instead of telling me what something is not, tell me what it is. Goddamn.

Altruism as you defined it was an unselfish act, to further define it, it is an act taken on by a person with no visible benefit or later profit to the person for the expressed intent of helping another at their own cost.

What we observe is rather not selfless but a concern for their own profit, a poorly balanced proposal would mean they leave with nothing, so to go with the most balanced point is rather selfish, they are only trying to keep as much money as possible, it is just that the majority of people aren't clued into person B's psyche enough to risk anything more then a completely fair deal.

What defines altruism is not reward or potential reward, but rather intent.

If I help out the little old lady next door out of the goodness of my heart without an expectation of reward, it's still an altruistic action even if the little old lady decides to give me some home made cookies for my trouble.

True. But that wasn't the way the experiment worked.

You can't possibly say that anyone gave more out of the kindness of his heart, when the other one could have ruined the deal and thus inadvertedly threatened him to give.

You know, it just occurred to me that one of the arguments here was the the US population gave the most in charitable contributions. And this is often an argument in free market circles, that charities can accomplish far more in a far better way than government can.

Except... they can't. And it's pretty clear they can't. Things have gotten worse since 1980, for the vast majority of people. At this point 25% of the people own 87% of the wealth. And they keep that wealth, not because they are better than the remaining 75%, but because having wealth provides a firm base to continue making money. Not because they compete better, or more efficiently, or even provide better services. In my opinion, a really good capitalist system would be where one would not be allowed to pass one's wealth onto your children. Thereby always fostering competition among the many, rather than the few.

Our economy just collapsed, because people were making millions off of lies and deceit. The pro-market people will come along and explain to us that this is because of too much regulation. And too some degree, yes, the laws we created were obscure, and drafted by corporate interests, and favored the corporation. But this process began under Reagan and was continued by his successors, of deregulating, of removing safeguards against exploitative practices, and the rich have grown richer, and the poor have grown poorer.

At the same time, charities in the US give more than anybody else. But they have completely failed to mitigate the relatively even society we had. Income inequality has skyrocketed. And don't say, well, this is necessary to foster creativity. For the simple fact of the matter is that America has excelled at extending equality, and freedom, and ability at its most socialized points. Since the rise of social security, a middle class was created, solely by the government. Public education was of a greater quality, because the government dictated that we learn science and math to compete against the Soviets. We put a man on the moon, while we continued to expand welfare coverage. Our inventions of the 1940s-1970s excel most of the inventions since. Our accomplishments definitely excelled then.

And have charities halted the negative changes in society? No. In fact, as people grew rich off the government giving away services, cutting control, they attempted to force the system to keep them rich. The rich rigged the practices so the poor would have to pay more money. And it's caused more trouble for the majority of people than it's been worth. Charities are an utter and abject failure. We get angry at government, and we say it can't do anything right. Yet our army is held aloft as the supreme army on earth. If you can trust the government to run the army, you can trust them to run postal services, and collect taxes, and write laws, and provide welfare, and manage the economy. Because let me tell you, the military is just as incompetent as any other organization, within the government or without.

And I thought of an altruistic act that not only makes me feel good, it contradicts your "money is needed to provide the incentive to cure anything" and that probably also contradicts my point about charities as well:

Salk.

Instead of asking people what they want and producing it, in capitalism some people called entrepreneurs guess what people want, make it, and hope for the best. If people don't want what they make, they've just wasted time, money, and labor.
Also, there's the issue of allocation. Goods aren't allocated efficiently in a market. For instance, if all food was farmed as efficiently as it was in Holland, there would be enough to feed 67 billion people (source: http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxis ... as/ch1.htm). That's more than 10 times the amount of people alive. However, 1 billion people on this earth have no idea where their next meal is coming from, and farmers will actually destroy their crops to keep food prices up instead of feeding people.

A system with the sole aim of making profit cannot be made to be something compassionate. Capitalism is all about promoting "the virtue" of selfishness. The fact is that politicians do not represent the working class and poor, but their own agendas.

Give them a choice between wanting their families to be able to purchase more luxuries and making sure every citizen has the necessities in life, and they would choose the former.

The capitalist system moulds dishonest, opportunistic, politicians who do not, nor will ever, represent us, but themselves and their own comfort in life.

I believe in markets, and oppose capitalism. Mutualism forever!