Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Pedro Sánchez is sworn in as Spain's new prime minister
Topic Started: Jun 2 2018, 12:23 PM (709 Views)
estonianman
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Jun 3 2018, 05:01 AM
Hughmac
 
Call me old school, or even male chauvinist - and many will - but for me the ideal family arrangement was the father (capitalism) and the mother (socialism). That is to say that one produced the riches and the other administered it for the benefit of the family. You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good. The mother cannot spend more than what is coming into the household income, thus running up debts, and the father cannot spend his wage packet down the pub leaving the home's cupboards bare.


Well said Hugh
Well said but not based in reality. What Hugh is arguing for is a mixed economy, or in other words where the wealth generated by capitalism is squandered by socialism. Hugh wants to see this happen in real time which has been the american model since the 1930's, not the european model where they take advantage of the bounty created in past generations of capitalism and squander it all away - ala Sweden.

Let's talk about the only "successful" mixed economical version in the US, the top producer in the world for 80 years and it still $20 trillion in debt. An out of labor force participation rate that rivals the total population of some EU countries. Where most of every dollar redistributed by the US government goes to bureaucratic administration. That's your best "successful" model - and its looted out.

The problem lies in the incentives for success being lost when you nibble away at the meritocracy. Marxists/socialists incorrectly think that people want to work, but the reality is people just want a means to get "stuff". If that means they can modify their behavior to get a government benefit, they will do it. I see bonafide republicans who REEEEEEEEE about welfare brats all day long while their wife is on SS disability because of a back problem 20 years ago - ALL THE TIME in red states. Hence the "gibs me dat" entitled class grows which is why a mixed economy is ultimately unsustainable, especially in a democracy. Europe is expediting this process of cascading failure by putting socialists in seats of power while importing millions of economic migrants.

This is why I say that Sweden, France, the US and Canada is surviving DESPITE socialism, not because of it.

In before the

> bu' bu' bu' muh' gilded age and
> muh' greedy corporate overlords


You would rather hand your salary over to bureaucratic overlords comrade.

Yeah capitalism produces lots of s**t and lots of bounty. It's unfair, its competitive, its dirty, its a reflection of human nature which is 80% nice 20% evil (debatable, and based on the circumstances). In a way it emulates the ecosystem on earth which has survived 8 global extinctions and took bacteria to sentient beings in a 300 million years. Capitalism has been here for thousands of years and exists everywhere throughout the universe. When Spain inevitably goes Greece in a decade or so -capitalism will take over and keep people from starving. Its a flawed system for sure - but it is the best flawed system we have.

Edited by estonianman, Jun 3 2018, 11:38 AM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

estonianman
Jun 3 2018, 11:36 AM
ringotuna
Jun 3 2018, 05:01 AM
Hughmac
 
Call me old school, or even male chauvinist - and many will - but for me the ideal family arrangement was the father (capitalism) and the mother (socialism). That is to say that one produced the riches and the other administered it for the benefit of the family. You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good. The mother cannot spend more than what is coming into the household income, thus running up debts, and the father cannot spend his wage packet down the pub leaving the home's cupboards bare.


Well said Hugh
Well said but not based in reality. What Hugh is arguing for is a mixed economy, or in other words where the wealth generated by capitalism is squandered by socialism.
I, Hugh, did not say that nor imply it. where the hell did you get "squander" from???

If you look at what I said, it was the complete opposite of squandering. I specifically set you can't spend more than you income.

I'll look at the rest of your post later, but if it's anything like this introduction then there is little point in doing so.

Cheers
Hughmac
Edited by Hughmac, Jun 3 2018, 03:03 PM.
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jun 3 2018, 03:01 PM
estonianman
Jun 3 2018, 11:36 AM
ringotuna
Jun 3 2018, 05:01 AM
Hughmac
 
Call me old school, or even male chauvinist - and many will - but for me the ideal family arrangement was the father (capitalism) and the mother (socialism). That is to say that one produced the riches and the other administered it for the benefit of the family. You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good. The mother cannot spend more than what is coming into the household income, thus running up debts, and the father cannot spend his wage packet down the pub leaving the home's cupboards bare.


Well said Hugh
Well said but not based in reality. What Hugh is arguing for is a mixed economy, or in other words where the wealth generated by capitalism is squandered by socialism.
I, Hugh, did not say that nor imply it. where the hell did you get "squander" from???

If you look at what I said, it was the complete opposite of squandering. I specifically set you can't spend more than you income.

I'll look at the rest of your post later, but if it's anything like this introduction then there is little point in doing so.

Cheers
Hughmac
You said:

Hughmac
 
You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good.


Which is a mixed economy. The dream that socialism and capitalism somehow compliment each other. Socialism compliments capitalism like a parasite compliments its host, note Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga

"Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga is a Costa Rican parasitic wasp that terrorizes the spider Plesiometa argyra. When it's time to procreate, an adult female wasp will seek out a spider, paralyze it and then lay an egg on its abdomen. After hatching, the larva wasp will feed on its host, while the spider goes about its business like nothing's wrong.

Then things get interesting. After a couple weeks of bloodsucking, the larva will inject a chemical into the spider, which causes the spider to build a web like none it's ever built before. The spider sits motionless in its creation — which is far from pretty, but super durable and able to withstand pelts of rain — to await its fate. The parasite then kills the spider with poison, sucks it dry and builds a cocoon that hangs from the middle of the new web."


Which is exactly what happens, once you open the door for forced redistribution society will continue to squeeze until all the wealth is gone. In democratic socialism entire political campaigns are run on how much can be redistributed and to who in exchange for votes. The top 1% all the way down until the only jobs left are "the party". If Spain truly wanted to turn its economy around it would run on programs that promote industrialization, capital investment, the arts with low taxation for all. Spain is a Greece crossroads at the moment - you either cut spending or the next 10 years is going to be hell.

Hughmac
 
If you look at what I said, it was the complete opposite of squandering. I specifically set you can't spend more than you income.


But it is. I already told you if the goal is to give money to the poor then the only efficient way to do that is by voluntary charity - which many rich do on a constant basis. The transfer efficiency of private charity is 80 - 100%, where as the transfer efficiency of public wealth redistribution is less than 50% due to the administration costs - which only grow mind you. Do you have public sector unions in Spain? If so then that efficiency is much lower.

If you are talking about the bigger picture - well yes socialist governments always squander, the USSR was one of the worst and despite Putin wanting to travel back in time there would be no way to resurrect that beached whale. Everything was routed through the politburo - it was the darwin award for centralization. Learn from it.

Hughmac
 
I'll look at the rest of your post later, but if it's anything like this introduction then there is little point in doing so.


That's not very nice. I thought we came to an agreement a while back?

Most of the posters around here are about as shallow as a ditch in the desert, not you. Its been a good while since I had a good discussion on centralization vs decentralization on here, mostly its been calling out lies and fake news for at least 18 months. If I am wasting my time just say it.

Edited by estonianman, Jun 3 2018, 04:06 PM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

estonianman
Jun 3 2018, 04:02 PM
Hughmac
Jun 3 2018, 03:01 PM
estonianman
Jun 3 2018, 11:36 AM
ringotuna
Jun 3 2018, 05:01 AM
Hughmac
 
Call me old school, or even male chauvinist - and many will - but for me the ideal family arrangement was the father (capitalism) and the mother (socialism). That is to say that one produced the riches and the other administered it for the benefit of the family. You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good. The mother cannot spend more than what is coming into the household income, thus running up debts, and the father cannot spend his wage packet down the pub leaving the home's cupboards bare.


Well said Hugh
Well said but not based in reality. What Hugh is arguing for is a mixed economy, or in other words where the wealth generated by capitalism is squandered by socialism.
I, Hugh, did not say that nor imply it. where the hell did you get "squander" from???

If you look at what I said, it was the complete opposite of squandering. I specifically set you can't spend more than you income.

I'll look at the rest of your post later, but if it's anything like this introduction then there is little point in doing so.

Cheers
Hughmac
You said:

Hughmac
 
You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good.


Which is a mixed economy. The dream that socialism and capitalism somehow compliment each other. Socialism compliments capitalism like a parasite compliments its host, note Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga

"Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga is a Costa Rican parasitic wasp that terrorizes the spider Plesiometa argyra. When it's time to procreate, an adult female wasp will seek out a spider, paralyze it and then lay an egg on its abdomen. After hatching, the larva wasp will feed on its host, while the spider goes about its business like nothing's wrong.

Then things get interesting. After a couple weeks of bloodsucking, the larva will inject a chemical into the spider, which causes the spider to build a web like none it's ever built before. The spider sits motionless in its creation — which is far from pretty, but super durable and able to withstand pelts of rain — to await its fate. The parasite then kills the spider with poison, sucks it dry and builds a cocoon that hangs from the middle of the new web."


Which is exactly what happens, once you open the door for forced redistribution society will continue to squeeze until all the wealth is gone. In democratic socialism entire political campaigns are run on how much can be redistributed and to who in exchange for votes. The top 1% all the way down until the only jobs left are "the party". If Spain truly wanted to turn its economy around it would run on programs that promote industrialization, capital investment, the arts with low taxation for all. Spain is a Greece crossroads at the moment - you either cut spending or the next 10 years is going to be hell.

Hughmac
 
If you look at what I said, it was the complete opposite of squandering. I specifically set you can't spend more than you income.


But it is. I already told you if the goal is to give money to the poor then the only efficient way to do that is by voluntary charity - which many rich do on a constant basis. The transfer efficiency of private charity is 80 - 100%, where as the transfer efficiency of public wealth redistribution is less than 50% due to the administration costs - which only grow mind you. Do you have public sector unions in Spain? If so then that efficiency is much lower.

If you are talking about the bigger picture - well yes socialist governments always squander, the USSR was one of the worst and despite Putin wanting to travel back in time there would be no way to resurrect that beached whale. Everything was routed through the politburo - it was the darwin award for centralization. Learn from it.

Hughmac
 
I'll look at the rest of your post later, but if it's anything like this introduction then there is little point in doing so.


That's not very nice. I thought we came to an agreement a while back?

Most of the posters around here are about as shallow as a ditch in the desert, not you. Its been a good while since I had a good discussion on centralization vs decentralization on here, mostly its been calling out lies and fake news for at least 18 months. If I am wasting my time just say it.

You've made this impossible, owing to the layout, to respond in a comprehensible manner, so I shall split it up into different sections - H
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

Quote:
 
estonianman: What Hugh is arguing for is a mixed economy, or in other words where the wealth generated by capitalism is squandered by socialism.

Hughmac:: I, Hugh, did not say that nor imply it. where the hell did you get "squander" from??? If you look at what I said, it was the complete opposite of squandering. I specifically said you can't spend more than your income.

estonianman: But it is. I already told you if the goal is to give money to the poor then the only efficient way to do that is by voluntary charity - which many rich do on a constant basis. The transfer efficiency of private charity is 80 - 100%, where as the transfer efficiency of public wealth redistribution is less than 50% due to the administration costs - which only grow mind you. Do you have public sector unions in Spain? If so then that efficiency is much lower.

If you are talking about the bigger picture - well yes socialist governments always squander, the USSR was one of the worst and despite Putin wanting to travel back in time there would be no way to resurrect that beached whale. Everything was routed through the politburo - it was the darwin award for centralization. Learn from it.


Now, you even went so far as to further quote me: "You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good."

It turns out that I never said nor implied "squandering" in fact the key concept, which you thoughtfully quoted above was "the two have to be balanced"

Your take, right from the outset, was a complete imbalance where you even compare socialism to a 'parasite.' Yet unchecked capitalism is the very essence of the concept of "parasitism." However, I was no more speaking of unchecked capitalism as I was of unchecked socialism. I stated very clearly: balanced.

Capitalism has to be controlled as does socialism and they have to be balanced for a society to work.

I lived through an epoch of unchecked socialism in the UK in the 70s, so I know what I am talking about, so your observations that I, in some way, entertain some make-believe concept of socialism as the answer to everything is mind-boggling.

Cheers
Hughmac
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

estonianman
Jun 3 2018, 11:36 AM
The problem lies in the incentives for success being lost when you nibble away at the meritocracy. Marxists/socialists incorrectly think that people want to work, but the reality is people just want a means to get "stuff". If that means they can modify their behavior to get a government benefit, they will do it. I see bonafide republicans who REEEEEEEEE about welfare brats all day long while their wife is on SS disability because of a back problem 20 years ago - ALL THE TIME in red states. Hence the "gibs me dat" entitled class grows which is why a mixed economy is ultimately unsustainable, especially in a democracy. Europe is expediting this process of cascading failure by putting socialists in seats of power while importing millions of economic migrants.
I agree with this completely. Many people don't want to work. There are cases of three generations of welfare-benefit receivers living under one roof. Some people are claiming benefits because 'they cannot work' they claim, but if the gravy train passed by without stopping, they would soon find that they are miraculously fit for work again when they start to get hungry.

Others genuinely cannot work, amongst whom was my wife, who after her first brain-tumour operation had virtually zero short-term memory and no peripheral vision. She had worked all her life (and she was damned hard worker), paid her taxes and received a disability allowance for the remaining four years of her life.

Thanks to National Public Health all her brain operations during that time - she had about seven - were possible, and it didn't cost us a penny more that what we had been paying through our taxes. She had the best possible treatment under Spain's top neurosurgeon, who was, fortunately for us, based in Granada's main hospital.

In the US, we would have had to sell everything we owned and borrowed off friend and family to have been able to afford what we had in Spain, yet you quote the US as the country with the best balance between capitalism and socialism?

Look, even in the armed forces (the right-wing's darling), is the essence of socialism in the sense of the state providing for the common good, yet there is waste and slacking off. I remember when somebody had stolen the laces from my shoes, so I went to the stores for new laces, which would have been docked from my salary, but the clerk just handed me new shoes complete with laces, because it was easier and less paperwork, which I wouldn't be docked for. Anybody who has done time in the forces knows that waste there is prolific.

Cheers
Hughmac
PS: You're going to have to wait for my next post, I'm afraid as this one is already my 3rd one, so I will have to wait for somebody else to post on this thread - sorry!
Edited by Hughmac, Jun 4 2018, 05:14 AM.
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jun 3 2018, 04:04 AM
Robert Stout
Jun 3 2018, 03:28 AM
Hughmac
Jun 3 2018, 01:47 AM
Robert Stout
Jun 2 2018, 06:16 PM
Hughmac
Jun 2 2018, 05:06 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepall politiciansI just looked it up, wow

are all going to want "gibs me dats", the productive people leave - the remaining wealth and culture that your beautiful country has built up over the centuries will be squandered on the hordes.

Source? Take a look at these "success" storiesand many will - but for me the ideal family arrangement was the father (capitalism) and the mother (socialism). That is to say that one produced the riches and the other administered it for the benefit of the family. You can't run a country on pure socialism and you can't run one on pure capitalism - the two have to be balanced for the common good. The mother cannot spend more than what is coming into the household income, thus running up debts, and the father cannot spend his wage packet down the pub leaving the home's cupboards bare.

You spend your savings, putting in all the hours, shouldering the worry that comes with investment risk, then you should reap the benefits for your personal good, but never through exploiting those that work for you.

A moral capitalist's cornerstone should be: I will give you employment with a fair wage but the profits are mine, but just as I have to invest in modernising the machinery etc to keep my business competitive thus producing a profitable output, then I should also invest - and that is the key word "invest," in my workers' welfare.

Cheers
Hughmac
"Social Justice" has no place in the modern world....It died with the USSR............... :rollseyes:
Your country, was brought into being by an inspiration to Social Justice - at least that is what your commie pinkoes, the Founding Fathers, sold it as - H
The American Revolution was all about getting rid of British royalty and colonial status....Most of our founders were capitalists before the industrial revolution....Britain is one of the few countries in the world which retains a royalty...."Social Justice" is a commie phrase......... :oyvey:
Your Founding Fathers were hypocrites "We, the people... unless you're black, red or yellow..." They spouted grandiose utterances about liberty... but owned slaves! Give me a break!

Yeah, plenty of hot air about inalienable right to form your own nation yet just over 70 years later you went to war to stop some of the states doing precisely that!

Jesus Christ, Robbie, what have you got again the bottom of your own boat?


Cheers
Hughmac
You are perceptive enough to see the USA has never been about "Social Justice"....We left that concept to the USSR, Red China, and modern day Great Britain....The USA is destined to rule the "free world" and all the less worthy who reside there....Great Britain will become our colony................ :nana:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

estonianman
Jun 3 2018, 04:02 PM
estonianman
 
But it is. I already told you if the goal is to give money to the poor then the only efficient way to do that is by voluntary charity - which many rich do on a constant basis. The transfer efficiency of private charity is 80 - 100%, where as the transfer efficiency of public wealth redistribution is less than 50% due to the administration costs - which only grow mind you. Do you have public sector unions in Spain? If so then that efficiency is much lower.

OK, let's look at charity. Charity organisations have tremendous administrative costs, which gobble up most of the funding - and I mean "most." You might remember Live Aid, where they went so far as to buy a fleet of lorries to cut down on costs because of the mafia and pilfering involved in hiring lorries at that end.

Reading your posts I get the impression that you have a hazy idea on the concept of "society, social and socialism" and what they mean.

From the dawn of civilisation as we know it - let's say about 3,500 years BC, when the first city states came into being in the Fertile Crescent, Nile Delta, Indus Valley and China, the city-state societies pooled resources with state granaries and collective irrigation projects, etc, etc.

The Minoan society, for example was probably an egalitarian one, and there is evidence of collective housing and communal warehouses. They had systems for providing and distributing water, as well as relocating sewage and stormwater. In other words, they pulled together to create public works for the benefit of all. They were excellent traders, reaching as far away as the Iberian Peninsular, where yours truly dwells.

In ancient Egypt, temples became the epicentre of the economy as they were responsible for collecting and storing the nation's wealth in a system of granaries and treasuries administered by overseers, who redistributed grain and goods

Let's move on to the Roman of the Republican Era: around 140 BC under Gaius Gracchus, the government procured an adequate supply of wheat to be sold at a low, fixed price in benefit of everyone who was prepared to queue up at the public granaries for his monthly quota - this was at half the market price. Who paid for it? The richer citizens and taxes levied on the provinces. Even in the time of the Emperors well over 200 years later, this went on.

What I am getting at, if you have been so good as to read all of the above, is that since man first organised civilised societies, the collective provided for the whole through wealth distribution. Socialism in a basic form far predates the likes of the 20th Century.

Cheers
Hughmac



H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

estonianman
 
That's not very nice. I thought we came to an agreement a while back?

Most of the posters around here are about as shallow as a ditch in the desert, not you. Its been a good while since I had a good discussion on centralization vs decentralization on here, mostly its been calling out lies and fake news for at least 18 months. If I am wasting my time just say it.

My apologies but saying that I had a Marxist in me was like showing a "red (communist) flag to a bull" ;)

I thought I had clearly explained my stance by citing the traditional family set out with the Father and Mother roles, but you somehow took it that I was promoting socialism as a better option to capitalism, whereas they are, in effect, two sides to the same coin. Life in a pure capitalist society would be hell and life in a communist one (something you confuse with socialism) would be equally hell.

Cheers
Hughmac
Edited by Hughmac, Jun 4 2018, 12:46 PM.
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

Robert Stout
Jun 4 2018, 07:06 AM
Robert Stout
 
The USA is destined to rule the "free world" :nana:
The USA did, for a short time, lead the Free World, but you fumbled the ball soon after having it passed to you by the British Empire. Never mind, every family gets a butter-fingered offspring down the line. :biggrin:

Cheers
HUghmac
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jun 4 2018, 12:45 PM
Robert Stout
Jun 4 2018, 07:06 AM
Robert Stout
 
The USA is destined to rule the "free world" :nana:
The USA did, for a short time, lead the Free World, but you fumbled the ball soon after having it passed to you by the British Empire. Never mind, every family gets a butter-fingered offspring down the line. :biggrin:

Cheers
HUghmac
Meanwhile Great Britain pays a little old lady to act like a Queen............ :oyvey:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

This quoting system is a bloody nightmare - H
Edited by Hughmac, Jun 5 2018, 02:17 AM.
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

Robert Stout
Jun 4 2018, 06:12 PM
Robert Stout
Jun 4 2018, 12:45 PM
Hughmac
Jun 4 2018, 07:06 AM
Robert Stout
 
The USA is destined to rule the "free world" :nana:
The USA did, for a short time, lead the Free World, but you fumbled the ball soon after having it passed to you by the British Empire. Never mind, every family gets a butter-fingered offspring down the line. :biggrin:

Cheers
HUghmac
Meanwhile Great Britain pays a little old lady to act like a Queen............ :oyvey:
Meanwhile the US pays Trump to be a PoTUS but instead he acts like a clown - H
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Che On The Rocks

EU needs to fight inequalities, new Spanish PM says
Quote:
 
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain’s new Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Monday the European Union should be a space of economic and social cohesion and that inequalities within the bloc must be reduced.
Free Milagro Sala!
What happened to Santiago Maldonado?
What happened to ARA San Juan?
Mapuche Lives Matter!
Stop the political persecution in Argentina!
Stop the looting of Argentina!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zon
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jun 4 2018, 12:41 PM
estonianman
 
That's not very nice. I thought we came to an agreement a while back?

Most of the posters around here are about as shallow as a ditch in the desert, not you. Its been a good while since I had a good discussion on centralization vs decentralization on here, mostly its been calling out lies and fake news for at least 18 months. If I am wasting my time just say it.

My apologies but saying that I had a Marxist in me was like showing a "red (communist) flag to a bull" ;)

I thought I had clearly explained my stance by citing the traditional family set out with the Father and Mother roles, but you somehow took it that I was promoting socialism as a better option to capitalism, whereas they are, in effect, two sides to the same coin. Life in a pure capitalist society would be hell and life in a communist one (something you confuse with socialism) would be equally hell.

Cheers
Hughmac
Indeed. Mixed economy is the way to go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

Zon
Jun 5 2018, 03:16 AM
Hughmac
Jun 4 2018, 12:41 PM
estonianman
 
That's not very nice. I thought we came to an agreement a while back?

Most of the posters around here are about as shallow as a ditch in the desert, not you. Its been a good while since I had a good discussion on centralization vs decentralization on here, mostly its been calling out lies and fake news for at least 18 months. If I am wasting my time just say it.

My apologies but saying that I had a Marxist in me was like showing a "red (communist) flag to a bull" ;)

I thought I had clearly explained my stance by citing the traditional family set out with the Father and Mother roles, but you somehow took it that I was promoting socialism as a better option to capitalism, whereas they are, in effect, two sides to the same coin. Life in a pure capitalist society would be hell and life in a communist one (something you confuse with socialism) would be equally hell.

Cheers
Hughmac
Indeed. Mixed economy is the way to go.
As the Chinese regime's conversion to such an arrangement shows - H ;)
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jun 5 2018, 12:14 PM
Zon
Jun 5 2018, 03:16 AM
Hughmac
Jun 4 2018, 12:41 PM
estonianman
 
That's not very nice. I thought we came to an agreement a while back?

Most of the posters around here are about as shallow as a ditch in the desert, not you. Its been a good while since I had a good discussion on centralization vs decentralization on here, mostly its been calling out lies and fake news for at least 18 months. If I am wasting my time just say it.

My apologies but saying that I had a Marxist in me was like showing a "red (communist) flag to a bull" ;)

I thought I had clearly explained my stance by citing the traditional family set out with the Father and Mother roles, but you somehow took it that I was promoting socialism as a better option to capitalism, whereas they are, in effect, two sides to the same coin. Life in a pure capitalist society would be hell and life in a communist one (something you confuse with socialism) would be equally hell.

Cheers
Hughmac
Indeed. Mixed economy is the way to go.
As the Chinese regime's conversion to such an arrangement shows - H ;)
This is like talking out of both sides of your mouth.............. :oyvey:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

Robert Stout
Jun 5 2018, 02:34 PM
Hughmac
Jun 5 2018, 12:14 PM
Zon
Jun 5 2018, 03:16 AM
Hughmac
Jun 4 2018, 12:41 PM
estonianman
 
That's not very nice. I thought we came to an agreement a while back?

Most of the posters around here are about as shallow as a ditch in the desert, not you. Its been a good while since I had a good discussion on centralization vs decentralization on here, mostly its been calling out lies and fake news for at least 18 months. If I am wasting my time just say it.

My apologies but saying that I had a Marxist in me was like showing a "red (communist) flag to a bull" ;)

I thought I had clearly explained my stance by citing the traditional family set out with the Father and Mother roles, but you somehow took it that I was promoting socialism as a better option to capitalism, whereas they are, in effect, two sides to the same coin. Life in a pure capitalist society would be hell and life in a communist one (something you confuse with socialism) would be equally hell.

Cheers
Hughmac
Indeed. Mixed economy is the way to go.
As the Chinese regime's conversion to such an arrangement shows - H ;)
This is like talking out of both sides of your mouth.............. :oyvey:
Should be easy for you; you're accustomed to speaking out of your arse and mouth at the same time anyway, I hear... :biggrin: - H
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jun 5 2018, 03:46 PM
Robert Stout
Jun 5 2018, 02:34 PM
Hughmac
Jun 5 2018, 12:14 PM
Zon
Jun 5 2018, 03:16 AM
Hughmac
Jun 4 2018, 12:41 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Indeed. Mixed economy is the way to go.
As the Chinese regime's conversion to such an arrangement shows - H ;)
This is like talking out of both sides of your mouth.............. :oyvey:
Should be easy for you; you're accustomed to speaking out of your arse and mouth at the same time anyway, I hear... :biggrin: - H
It takes one to know one............ :lol:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

Robert Stout
Jun 5 2018, 04:33 PM
Hughmac
Jun 5 2018, 03:46 PM
Robert Stout
Jun 5 2018, 02:34 PM
Hughmac
Jun 5 2018, 12:14 PM
Zon
Jun 5 2018, 03:16 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
As the Chinese regime's conversion to such an arrangement shows - H ;)
This is like talking out of both sides of your mouth.............. :oyvey:
Should be easy for you; you're accustomed to speaking out of your arse and mouth at the same time anyway, I hear... :biggrin: - H
It takes one to know one............ :lol:
:cheers:
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply