Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Explain to me the checks and balances that are inherent in capitalism. Like when Marcos was president of the Philippines, or Mobutu in Zaire, or the Shah in Iran, or the Saudi kings. Tell me about the checks and balances.
By the way, there are checks and balances in communism. In Chile, Allende was elected in a free election, and the CIA checked and balanced him.
Jturd,
The checks and balances in capitalism, and it is sad that a supposedly-educated person has to be told this, is that capitialism is made up of free markets where the collective intellect and decision-making of everyone who has, or consisders having skin in the game comes into action, each factor checking and balancing the other. Buyers compete to buy products, and sellers compete to make better products. It is self-regulating through a system composed of an infinite number of checks and balances - and it is voluntary.
Now memorize that and stop asking stupid quesions, and consider yourself poached.
The checks and balances in capitalism, and it is sad that a supposedly-educated person has to be told this, is that capitialism is made up of free markets where the collective intellect and decision-making of everyone who has, or consisders having skin in the game comes into action, each factor checking and balancing the other. Buyers compete to buy products, and sellers compete to make better products. It is self-regulating through a system composed of an infinite number of checks and balances - and it is voluntary.
Now memorize that and stop asking stupid quesions, and consider yourself poached.
MahiAhiOno
What happens when the scale is tipped, when those with means, such as the monopoly owners under Theodore Roosevelt, earn so much money, they buy anything that makes money.
Then, they regulate the economy, to suit their means, by making all essential products and services.
Then, they use their revenue to procure lobbyists to get politicians, who are only seeking reelection, to vote for laws that only suit their means, by offering them campaign donations, to ensure they stay in power.
The system is broken. When we had a government where the vote of the poorest citizen, was equal to that of the richest citizen, it works.
The difference between capitalism and communism is that they reverse the rolls. Communism takes away your voting right, but it keeps the economy fair. Capitalism is supposed to give you the voting right, but doesn't keep the economy fair.
The problem lies, when the former capitalist country takes away the voting right, and the economic fairness. This is whats happened to these United States.
What happens when the scale is tipped, when those with means, such as the monopoly owners under Theodore Roosevelt, earn so much money, they buy anything that makes money.
Then, they regulate the economy, to suit their means, by making all essential products and services.
Then, they use their revenue to procure lobbyists to get politicians, who are only seeking reelection, to vote for laws that only suit their means, by offering them campaign donations, to ensure they stay in power.
The system is broken. When we had a government where the vote of the poorest citizen, was equal to that of the richest citizen, it works.
The difference between capitalism and communism is that they reverse the rolls. Communism takes away your voting right, but it keeps the economy fair. Capitalism is supposed to give you the voting right, but doesn't keep the economy fair.
The problem lies, when the former capitalist country takes away the voting right, and the economic fairness. This is whats happened to these United States.
Agreed with your post, however, need an explanation about not having the voting right in The USA.
What happens when the scale is tipped, when those with means, such as the monopoly owners under Theodore Roosevelt, earn so much money, they buy anything that makes money.
Then, they regulate the economy, to suit their means, by making all essential products and services.
Then, they use their revenue to procure lobbyists to get politicians, who are only seeking reelection, to vote for laws that only suit their means, by offering them campaign donations, to ensure they stay in power.
The system is broken. When we had a government where the vote of the poorest citizen, was equal to that of the richest citizen, it works.
The difference between capitalism and communism is that they reverse the rolls. Communism takes away your voting right, but it keeps the economy fair. Capitalism is supposed to give you the voting right, but doesn't keep the economy fair.
The problem lies, when the former capitalist country takes away the voting right, and the economic fairness. This is whats happened to these United States.
I don't know what United States you are talking about, but it can't be the USA. What voting right has been taken away. If anything, the right to vote is too widespread. For example, 18 year olds vote, but they have no concept of what is what in the world. They have no world experience on which to base a rational vote. Also, too many illegals vote and ghost voters.
So that is one strike against your position.
Strike two is your silly statement but (capitalism) doesn't keep the economy fair. We have the fairest, most opportunity-ridden economy in the world, and that is why people come here under the most expreme circumstances.
Your third and final strike is your completely unfounded statement that communism keeps the economy fair.
I am completely amazed at the abject stupidity that is demonstrated by people who, should have at least of modicum of intelligence and understanding of the world.
Agreed with your post, however, need an explanation about not having the voting right in The USA.
Well think about it.
In 2000, the people of our country voted for one President, and got another one.
Every single poll out in the United states puts the congresses approval rating down around the 20 to 30 percentile. Yet, the same tired, idiotic congressmen get voted in, time and time again.
Who else are you going to vote for? You can throw your vote away on a hopeless third party, and never get anything done. You can try and vote for "the new guy" and find out he isn't much better than the last guy you had. They are all career politicians.
Politicians only seem to bow to special interest groups, and lobbyists. They could care less about the people at home, because with enough "campaign contributions" from those special interests and lobbyists, they'll win the next election simply from advertising dollars.
Thats what I mean about your vote being taken away. You have the illusion of a vote, but in the end, it means nothing in todays America. When our country was founded, that was the great equalizer. Your vote, was the same as the richest business mans. All were equal in the voting booth, but today, that is no longer the case.
I don't know what United States you are talking about, but it can't be the USA. What voting right has been taken away. If anything, the right to vote is too widespread. For example, 18 year olds vote, but they have no concept of what is what in the world. They have no world experience on which to base a rational vote. Also, too many illegals vote and ghost voters.
So that is one strike against your position.
Strike two is your silly statement but (capitalism) doesn't keep the economy fair. We have the fairest, most opportunity-ridden economy in the world, and that is why people come here under the most expreme circumstances.
Your third and final strike is your completely unfounded statement that communism keeps the economy fair.
I am completely amazed at the abject stupidity that is demonstrated by people who, should have at least of modicum of intelligence and understanding of the world.
BTW, your OUT, cause you just got three strikes.
MahiAhiOno
Then why, pray tell, does the average United States CEO get paid
425 times more than the average worker, when the those in Japan, China, England, Germany, and most every other industrialized country in the world somewhere around 10 to 1?
As far as your "voting" question, read my previous post.
In 2000, the people of our country voted for one President, and got another one.
Every single poll out in the United states puts the congresses approval rating down around the 20 to 30 percentile. Yet, the same tired, idiotic congressmen get voted in, time and time again.
Who else are you going to vote for? You can throw your vote away on a hopeless third party, and never get anything done. You can try and vote for "the new guy" and find out he isn't much better than the last guy you had. They are all career politicians.
Politicians only seem to bow to special interest groups, and lobbyists. They could care less about the people at home, because with enough "campaign contributions" from those special interests and lobbyists, they'll win the next election simply from advertising dollars.
Thats what I mean about your vote being taken away. You have the illusion of a vote, but in the end, it means nothing in todays America. When our country was founded, that was the great equalizer. Your vote, was the same as the richest business mans. All were equal in the voting booth, but today, that is no longer the case.
See what I mean about stupidity.
Nobody has a right to vote for the President in the USA except for 535 people who comprise the Electoral College. Your vote is a vote for which people will become members of said "college.
People vote for them, that's why. Your beef with with the stupid people who vote for the same people over and over again.
Your vote doesn't mean anything. How crazy is that.
In 2008, because the media refused to point out his glaring and obvious deficiiencies, weaknesses and lack of qualification for office, and because a greedy little basspoop from Arizona just had to get int he way,
the American people voted into office a complete disaster as POTUS.
From the day it because obvious that McLame couldn't win, the economies of the world started puking out their guts and a mild recession was turned into a potential depression, and the finest health-care delivery "system" in the world is in the process of being destroyed, along with the student-loan system and others.
Perhaps you live in Chicago where dead people vote, but in the rest of the country, one person, one vote.
Then why, pray tell, does the average United States CEO get paid
425 times more than the average worker, when the those in Japan, China, England, Germany, and most every other industrialized country in the world somewhere around 10 to 1?
As far as your "voting" question, read my previous post.
Because in America, the average CEO is worth 425 times more to the company than the average worker. We have better CEOs, and far poorer workers.
It is called FREE MARKETS, and in the USA, quality management has its price, and you can be sure of ONE THING, they are WORTH IT, becasue if they weren't the BOD wouldn't hire them, or pay that salary.
Why are America-haters always comparing the USA (first-tier nation),
with back-bench nations, also-rans and other non-first-tier.
In 2000, the people of our country voted for one President, and got another one.
Every single poll out in the United states puts the congresses approval rating down around the 20 to 30 percentile. Yet, the same tired, idiotic congressmen get voted in, time and time again.
Here;s the situation I was in in 2008.
My incumbent congressman (Ron Paul) ran unopposed. The only way I could have voted for anyone else was as a write-in.
For president, I only get to vote for a slate of Texas electors. If a democrat elector slate was close enough to winning that my vote would have counted, every other state would have already gone democratic, so it wouldn't have mattered which way Texas went.
My vote would only have been a vote in favor of a broken and useless electoral process, which would only encourage the bastards. I voted "No".
By the way, the last time Ron Paul ran for re-election and the last time Saddam Hussein ran for re-election, they were the only names on the ballot. So what is the difference in the degree of participation by the voters in those electoral processes?
My incumbent congressman (Ron Paul) ran unopposed. The only way I could have voted for anyone else was as a write-in.
For president, I only get to vote for a slate of Texas electors. If a democrat elector slate was close enough to winning that my vote would have counted, every other state would have already gone democratic, so it wouldn't have mattered which way Texas went.
My vote would only have been a vote in favor of a broken and useless electoral process, which would only encourage the bastards. I voted "No".
By the way, the last time Ron Paul ran for re-election and the last time Saddam Hussein ran for re-election, they were the only names on the ballot. So what is the difference in the degree of participation by the voters in those electoral processes?
I love that Paul is your congressman! Must be hell for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
