Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
A large portion of poor people being pulled out of poverty has been made in the world by china. capitalists love to quote this stat, but it has been largely made by a command, "communist" country
It takes FAR more wealth to preserve those resources than it does to exploit them. Someone who is planning to log the forests and then sell the land to ranchers only needs to actually have a fraction of the money at hand, the rest they can borrow from other exploitative wealth-owners and then they all exploit the land together. Whereas someone who wishes to preserve it has to put up the entire cost, because they won't get loans, because they will not be able to pay them back because they are NOT exploiting the land and the people on it.RE: the forests and the trees - Yes. In fact a massive yes. The people who value them the most will pay the most to have them. Right now not enough people value the land to purchase it to protect it. So those who want to exploit are getting it for cheap. Only change is to buy it yourself tbh.
You keep going on the most worthless tangents. No one has criticized the existence of currency. The issue at hand is an economy based around loans at interest. You appear to either misunderstand everything that's being said to you or purposely pretending not to understand so you don't have to address the points.Currency and crude forms of capitalism date back to Knossos in minoan crete. Not 500-800 years. You'll find currency under monarchies despots parliaments etc. Its the 3rd greatest human invention outside of language and mathematics.
Yeah, most of my day job is spent in 3rd-world slums but I don't know what it means to be tangibly poor.after reading that bs eleventh round parable they told on themself
no accountability for a life of consumption. Its so ingrained that they probably dont even know what to be tangibly poor is
Wrong. Feudal mindset is a recent development in the timeline of the human experience. Even in modern history there were plenty of peoples across the world where the tribal leaders lived relatively similarly to the rest of the people in their tribe.Billionaires have existed since the beginning of time in one form or another. From feudal and serfs in europe and asia. To Gold rich kingdoms in south america and africa.
There will always be the haves and have nots. there will always be people that horde all the wealth and others who will take it by violent force.
Any one who thinks more laws will change the course of human history is delusional.
Holy shyt, did you even understand the slightest bit of the parable or not?at what point does the customer decide they have had enough chickenthat 10% is built on that alone. The minute chicken demand is less than that 10% its over.
this parables has hella holes and just assumes consumer greed and consumption increase over time. Its not the producers who embolden this system its the convenience of the rounds and chickens
all i see is a village that got too comfortable and didnt hold themselves accountable for their own overconsumption and trust in a convenience product![]()
Made possible by state capitalism...A large portion of poor people being pulled out of poverty has been made in the world by china. capitalists love to quote this stat, but it has been largely made by a command, "communist" country
Look at the incredible wiping out of resources across Asia and the move from China to resource-drain Africa as their backup measure and you might begin to spot it.Made possible by state capitalism...
... and at a time when the number of Chinese billionaires dramatically increased.
... Im still not seeing a fixed pie.![]()
In Africa...Look at the incredible wiping out of resources across Asia and the move from China to resource-drain Africa as their backup measure and you might begin to spot it.
Looks like the French Revolutionary wannabes have arrived. “If we just kill all the rich people, all the problems will be fixed” headass
Went and brought in Napoleon right after![]()
i'll say this again. people talk about laws and the government like its some machine . its not. its YOU and I. if you and I stop voting for idiots and start voting people out we know are taking bribes. they will stop taking bribes when they run for office. the more Honest joes and janes you have there. the better. the more you have the better the system works. no it will never be perfect, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt aim for perfection. the aim will have you in a better place every day that goes by. thats the approach that should be taken. not this there will always be poor people and rich people.
You do realize there are MORE poor people and less super rich people than there was before % wise. so this idea that says everything will always be this way is a lie. it wasnt always this way.
The existence of corruption is not a justification for it
There has always been racism and tribalism, does that mean it should also still exist?
Wrong. Feudal mindset is a recent development in the timeline of the human experience. Even in modern history there were plenty of peoples across the world where the tribal leaders lived relatively similarly to the rest of the people in their tribe.
Billionaires didn't exist until political systems developed that allowed people to take slaves who did the work for them while the wealthy lazy reaped the benefits. (In fact, even the original advent of slavery did not result in billionaires - you only got those massive discrepancies in wealth when you had particular settled ways of exploiting slaves for long-term profit).
And even if you were right it would be a terrible argument. Racism (in the form of tribalism or hatred of the 'other'), murder, rape, etc. have existed much longer than billionaires. You think that means we should ignore those things as well?
@MMS, your inability to honestly dialogue is becoming frustrating to the point of trolling levels. Are you EVER going to attempt to defend this system, or is every comment from you going to be the same deflection?
Yes, we understand that a rich capitalist exploiter can buy all the land out from under a bunch of poor people and then destroy all the forests and rivers on that land, because they have more money than the poor people. WHY do you think that's a good system? WHY do you think that's the way things should be?
We get that that's the way things are. That's not the question. The question is whether things should change. You're not addressing that at all. Why should wealthy people, who generally got their wealth via inheritance and exploitation of people and resources, be the ones who decide what happens to everyone else's resources?
It takes FAR more wealth to preserve those resources than it does to exploit them. Someone who is planning to log the forests and then sell the land to ranchers only needs to actually have a fraction of the money at hand, the rest they can borrow from other exploitative wealth-owners and then they all exploit the land together. Whereas someone who wishes to preserve it has to put up the entire cost, because they won't get loans, because they will not be able to pay them back because they are NOT exploiting the land and the people on it.
You're just straight-up saying that you're okay with the destruction of public goods because capitalism. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT. YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOUR SYSTEM AT ALL.
The people who wish to preserve those things don't have the money. The people who do have the money by and large got it by exploiting such resources or by taking economic rents from other people, in both cases they've proven that they don't give a shyt.
That's the dumbass circular logic you put yourself in. People have amassed wealth by exploiting resources, and when we complain and say those resources need to be preserved, you shout, "Well, why don't you just amass wealth and preserve it then?"
We don't amass wealth because we don't wish to exploit people and resources, dumbass.
You keep going on the most worthless tangents. No one has criticized the existence of currency. The issue at hand is an economy based around loans at interest. You appear to either misunderstand everything that's being said to you or purposely pretending not to understand so you don't have to address the points.
Yeah, most of my day job is spent in 3rd-world slums but I don't know what it means to be tangibly poor.
Way to prove that you neither understood the parable nor felt you could actually address its points.![]()
you cant for one second imagine a world in which you dont trade dollars for the things you need and thats why my view of your parable doesn't make senseHoly shyt, did you even understand the slightest bit of the parable or not?
In the parable, and in the current system, there is literally more money owed to the creditors than even exists in the system. It in fact is DESIGNED that way, because the only way that money enters the system is via loans at interest, and the interest demanded is above and beyond any money inserted into the system. Therefore the "producers" who borrow that money from the banks HAVE to increase production (and use every tool at their disposal, including government, coercion, and psychological manipulation, to increase consumption) or the system will collapse.
The parable doesn't "assume" that greed and consumption increase over time. That's where you clearly misunderstand it. The system REQUIRES that consumption increase over time or the loans will not be paid back.
its because I dont see the need to change it. You keep saying exploitation but never accountability for the purchasers. Their is nothing stopping people from sliding the credit card or dollars back into their wallet and saying "not a necessity"
you look at poor people as a quantity problem. I see it as an education and cultural problem.
I think its a good system because merit should be rewarded. Not just blind handing of things to everyone. Capitalism works out such that those who work the hardest to serve customers get paid the best. If you understand this you win in this system. If you dont you're on forum claiming bourgeoise and exploiting yada yada.
why should people loan money without intersest? Why should someone give you something THEY own for the value you expect. They made it, they determine what they think their products, services or assets are worth. Customers decided whether theyll pay
your whole stance assumes all people have equal say in what should happen between consumer/producer. I disagree. I think its a two-party conversation and should stay that way unless you want despots.
Which is basically what you wantThis why im not entertaining your shyt. In your idealized world noone owns anything. Yet someone definitely does. In china its very easy to start abusiness but your company and all your assets belong to the state. Thats not so in US. It should stay that way as money is a much better value system than not having achoice at all with what people like you THINK they want lol
This is an awful argument and you just restated everything he said you stated. “OH IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY”. Not mentioning how those people who got their money was by exploitation of humans through not paying them well.
I’m sorry you feel this way. And that you are okay with someone exploiting someone else to get rich. But that’s okay because you are probably being exploited too and you are okay with it. You are the problem. Okay with being fukked in the ass.
You would be one of the slaves in the plantation screaming “But they worked hard for this plantation we get to work on, they feed and house is don’t they?”