The economy in the United States is in a collapse.  The Capitalist system does not work anymore; banks have become more powerful than our politicians.  The government now has a policy based around Fear and Greed.  The rich are getting richer and more powerful, while the great masses of America wallow in poverty.

Must we continue to exist in this passive state, only living to serve the rich and powerful?  Or do we, the great masses, stand up against the policies Fear, and Greed, and God?  We must break the bonds that separate us, we must pull down the centers of Greed and Fear and we must pull down the houses of God.  These borders are created to separate us into individuals where we can be controlled easier.

We must stand up, against the tyranny of the centers of Greed, and Fear, and God.  Quoting John Adams:  "People should not fear government, government should fear people."  Once we stand up to Fear, to Greed, to God, we will become united!

This being said, I advocate the collapse of the Capitalist system and the foundation of the United Socialist Federal Republic, in which the government will exist to serve the people.  Capitalism is Dead.  We must put it out of it's misery and move on toward Socialism.

Views: 345

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The seeds needs to planted, Seth. We must put the idea into the minds of the people, and the people will begin to think.

Though it will come slowly, the people will begin to rise.

However this thinking will lead to a revolution--do you honestly think the rich will give up their power so easily?

Then it will be the old Capitalist system vs The United Socialist Federal Republic. When this movement gains enough backing, it will lead to a revolution.

But the seed must be planted.
The seeds are already planted, no one cares about anything as it is. If you want to make a difference make people care.
I give you an Atheist amen on that!
Corporations are great for the USA

Yes and no. To make such a sweeping statement like that I have to wonder if you meant it that way.

Corporations are great in many aspects, but they are not always great for "America". Wal-Mart is not great for "America" when it has decimated the middle class with their 2 million low paying, low benefit jobs that have eliminated whole towns' worth of businesses. I wish Wal-Mart would follow the Costco model. Costco has better sales per square foot than Sam's Club partly because they compensate their employees well with the added benefit that they don't have to worry about unions.
True, there are some companies that are models for beneficial capitalism. Publix stores in the Southeastern US follow a similar model. They grew slower than their union competition and are fiscally conservative and as such are more stable, offer better benefits and have happier employees who are also owners of the company as their stock is privately traded. They also have never had to shut down a store due to the store not doing well and when they do shut a store down as the did in Nashville it's because they moved it for customer and employee safety.

Recessions are inevitable in capitalism you have periods of joy and misery whereas in socialism you have nonstop misery. I have a few friends who lived in the former Soviet Union and they hated it. One told me how a drunken bum came into his and his mom's house to live and they were not allowed to let him leave.

Even with it's flaws i'll take capitalism.
Well, at the time the Soviet Union, it not on the track towards Socialism, it was corrupted and it devolved into a fascist communism. Though Stalin did turn Russia into a superpower he became corrupted and thus more like a totalitarian. So in fascist communism there is non-stop misery for the people, not for those in power.
I don;t know if I would consider taking Capitalism over Socialism during certain periods. They both can be miserable bedfellows. Hybrid economic systems FTW, I say. Give me a well regulated Capitalism with social safety nets and incentives to invest in the community and the future rather than satisfy the short term goals of raising share prices. Or something to that effect.
Yes, yes!
An economist I am not but reading your comments I can only assume you are quite certain you think you have been put in possession of the "truth " by your "econ 101" professor.

"Corporations are great for the USA. Wal-Mart for instance provides almost 2 million jobs and keeps down inflation rates better than the fed."

To hold up wal-mart or the fed as a positive example for anything makes it painfully obvious you've been drinking the koolaid........."Dude"

Frightening truly frightening.
Free markets always fail since they are not free at all. If you don't know this then you need to go and and educate yourself on economics.

Have you really been sucked into the anti socialist propaganda that deeply?
You will be back in church before you know it.
What happened was that the feds were bullying corporations into making loans to people who could not pay them back

That is only a very small part of what happened. To blame the economic collapse on that in any significant way is naive. Homeowners weren't selling their sub-prime mortgages up the chain of banks and investors as A rated investments and neither was the government. That was greed. And what about credit default swaps?
Spare us the GOP talking points.

The mortgage crisis was not caused by the govt pushing low-income housing or Fannie and Freddie. It was private label mortgage securitizers that moved into the subprime market aggressively in the mid-2000s while the GSEs were moving out. Only after the market collapsed in 2007 were Fannie and Freddie pushed to fill the gap left when banks stopped lending.

It certainly was not a failure of socialism, but rather one of regulation, or lack thereof. It was a combination of a good old-fashioned property bubble, coupled with modern securitization practices that allow banks to pass along credit risk of mortgages to investors, giving lenders an incentive to lower credit standards; a failure of risk management models to accurately price default risk of these complex securities; a system that has rating agencies paid by issuers, setting up a conflict of interest, where they will give unrealistically favorable ratings to clients who pay for it; and finally, lax regulation (at the state level) of mortgage brokers, that allowed them to engage in fraudulent practices to increase their flow and thus commissions. None of this had anything to do with socialism.

The stimulus has only "failed" in the sense that it didn't go far enough. Certainly it prevented jobs losses from being higher than they would've been otherwise, but it was way too small to get the job done. Obama either misjudged what size would be needed, or made a poor political judgment, thinking that a larger bill could not have passed.

The stimulus failed to lower employment more than it did for the following reasons:
1. It was too small.
2. Much of it (about half) was in the form of tax cuts, which are a very inefficient form of stimulus, because the purpose of a stimulus is to increase the money in circulation, but when there is a tax cut some of the money (most of it for the more well off) will be saved instead of spent.
3. While the Federal government was increasing spending, states were cutting back, generally due to statutory limits on their ability to run deficits. Thus overall government spending didn't increase by that much.
4. Much of the stimulus (e.g., for construction projects) hasn't even been spent yet.

The classic example of a stimulus that succeeded was the govt's spending during WWII (30% of GNP) that ended the Great Depression. And spending on armaments is just about the most inefficient use of resources imaginable.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service