#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
As opposed to China and Vietnam, WHY is Russia NEVER gonna be CAPITALIST?
Russians don't GET capitalism
Side Score: 52
|
Asians GET capitalism bigly
Side Score: 71
|
|
1
point
If you don't understand capitalism, you'll NEVER understand capitalism.. The problem isn't that people don't understand capitalism you pretentious twit. The problem is that capitalism demonstrably can't sustain itself because the gap between rich and poor keeps growing exponentially. It's an unfair system which isn't much better for the everyday person than feudalism. The only people who attempt to defend it on an intellectual level are idiots or those whose power/wealth depends upon its continuation. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
capitalism demonstrably can't sustain itself Demonstrably is the key word here. Not only has Capitalism sustained itself, it has created wealth such that the world has never seen at a pace never conceived of for increasing numbers of people at the peak of our population. These facts are demonstrable and observable. What is not demonstrable is the defunct theory that at some future point capitalism (economic freedom) cannot sustain itself. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
Demonstrably is the key word here. Idiot is the key word. Not only has Capitalism sustained itself LOL. Did it sustain itself in Rwanda during the 1990s? Did it sustain itself in Libya under Colonel Gaddafi? Did it sustain itself in Zimbabwe under Mugabe when inflation reached 800 billion percent? Did it sustain itself in 2008 when the global economy had to be bailed out with trillions of dollars of SOCIALIST TAXPAYER MONEY? As always Amarel, literally everything you say is a lie. You are a liar and you are a supremacist far right Jew. Basically the worst kind of person there is: a Jew who agrees with the Nazis. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
You clearly don’t know what capitalism is. Yawn... Your slander is boring, stupid and (as always) empty of any truth. I don't care what your opinion is about anything because you are a lying authoritarian Jew who only cares about his own interests. Hell, you don’t even seem to know it means to trade something. I understand enough to know that you don't pay both the seller and the labourer for the same item, you stupid lying dickhead. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
The problem is that capitalism demonstrably can't sustain itself because the gap between rich and poor keeps growing exponentially. Hello commie: You're talking about UNFETTERED capitalism.. I'm a STRONG believer in FETTERING the shit out of capitalism. For example, I would absolutely FETTER the payday loan industry OUT of existence because it's DESIGNED to RIP OFF the poor.. I would ABSOLUTELY fetter the banking industry.. I would FETTER the tax system so the 1% once again, shares the wealth.. I would FETTER the minimum wage law... I would FETTER the health care system so that EVERYBODY had quality care.. In fact, you could call me the FETTERER in chief. I could go on and on, but I think you understand.. Or, maybe not.. It's like I said.. You don't understand capitalism and you never WILL understand capitalism.. excon Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
1
point
You're talking about UNFETTERED capitalism. Shut up, idiot. I'm talking about capitalism. You are trying to invent a "bad" form of capitalism so that you can pretend that there is a "good" form of capitalism. This is stupid and dishonest of you. It is not an aberration of capitalism when poverty, homelessness and starvation emerge. These are consequences of capitalism. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
I agree! (excon),but it's not capitalism that's to blame, it's the ABUSE of capitalism, [read], the LOBBYING paid for BY the capitalists that has made it a bad thing. Adam Smith, one of our founding fathers, wrote THE book on capitalism. At least, what THEY thought capitalism should be! Its titled "The Wealth of Nations". If lobbying hadn't turned it into a bad thing, if it were still as our founders envisioned it, it WOULD be a good thing, still! A few lines from it: "The necessities of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principle expense of the rich and a magnificent house [and yacht] embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities they possess. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something MORE than that proportion." THAT is how capitalism is SUPPOSED to be … as envisioned by our founding fathers. Today, they pay a pittance of taxes, another pittance to "charity", and go buy another $40M yacht …. while another [expensive] lobbyist is working for them in Washington! To get back to the question, When we become an oligarchy, like Russia, those expensive lobbyists will no longer be needed, they can make any rule they wish, as long as the top oligarchs agree with it. Screw the people! Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
It's not capitalism that's to blame, it's the ABUSE of capitalism Congratulations on being completely sucked in by capitalists. Capitalism can't possibly be a flawed theory. We must be doing something wrong when we start to see lots of poor people. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
How can you say I am "sucked in by capitalists" when I post AGAINST capitalism all the time! This is an OPINION site, and I have a right to my opinion. My opinion is that capitalism has its place, capitalism CAN be good, Capitalism MUST be controlled or it IS bad, and I am a democratic socialist. I think capitalism as it is today REALLY sucks, it is THE CAUSE of so many poor (or struggling) people. Where did that "Capitalism can't possibly be a flawed theory" come from?? CERTAINLY NOT ME! It IS flawed, it HAS BEEN flawed … especially since Reagan and certainly since conservatives took over the Congress and Senate (and the SCOTUS passed Citizens United!) Russia will never be capitalist, except for the powerful. It is an oligarchy, and WE are headed the same way thanx to "the rich and famous" who have taken control of the government that USED to be By, FOR and OF the people. Capitalists and their lobbyists are destroying America WITH uncontrolled capitalism! VOTE THEM OUT! Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
How can you say I am "sucked in by capitalists" when I post AGAINST capitalism all the time! You aren't against capitalism, you're for limiting it with state regulation. This is an OPINION site This is a debate site, and the mere use of the word opinion offends me. For me, debate is about arguing it out until both parties understand the actual truth, not about bickering back and forth with vacuous subjective opinions. I have a right to my opinion. When people say that all I hear is "I have the right to be objectively incorrect and try to justify it by personalizing and owning my stupidity with the word opinion". My opinion is that capitalism has its place, capitalism CAN be good Something either works or it doesn't in real life, if something is good then it's fucking good, if you knew what you where talking about you wouldn't be whining about opinions. Capitalists and their lobbyists are destroying America WITH uncontrolled capitalism! Then become a real socialist like me and Nom and stop supporting the system. VOTE THEM OUT! Voting will do you no good when it's the same uncontrolled capitalist activity that decides who gets into the fucking white house. The whole system needs to be uprooted. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
You aren't against capitalism, you're for limiting it with state regulation. Exactly. He has right wing beliefs which he tries to justify with left wing ideology. For example: capitalism is inherently good (right wing belief) but abuses and corruption have been prevalent (left wing ideology). Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
Poverty’s the starting point. Increased capitalism has brought decreases in poverty. You have demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of value, trade, and capitalism itself. You have additionally lied to ignore obvious and observable facts, such as the worldwide increase in wealth with increased economic freedom. As such your opinion on economic matters is completely invalidated. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
3
points
Poverty’s the starting point. Another demonstrable piece of idiotic untrue bullshit. Monarchist Britain wasn't poor. It was just that the riches were confined to too few places, the same as happens under capitalism. Increased capitalism has brought decreases in poverty. Also obviously false. Increased capitalism has brought decreases in poverty for SOME PEOPLE, while others have become relatively poorer. That's the way it works when you have finite resources. When one person gains more power over those resources then that necessarily means others have to lose it. You have demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of value, trade, and capitalism itself. The complete opposite is true. You claimed labourers gained the full product of their labour, which negates the entire reason Communism was invented. You literally just write incoherent nonsense and follow it up by claiming it proves I'm wrong about everything. Nothing you say is true because you are a fucking lying idiot who contradicts himself every third sentence. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
Another demonstrable piece of idiotic untrue bullshit. You’re always so obviously backwards. All of humanity started off in poverty. Wealth was created slowly over time. Monarchists confiscates value and poverty persisted. Capitalism requires the institution of property rights, which hinders others, such as monarchs and communists, from confiscating the wealth I created. That’s one reason why the world has been increasingly better off as capitalism has spread. You’ll never win. Increased capitalism has brought decreases in poverty for SOME PEOPLE, while others have become relatively poorer. Relatively is the key word here. I have become more wealthy over the course of time. My absolute wealth has increased despite being relatively destitute compared to Bill Gates. Relative poverty doesn’t matter so long as absolute poverty decreases. With Capitalism, absolute poverty decreases. It has the added benefit of being morally correct. When one person gains more power over those resources then that necessarily means others have to lose it. If resources were not limited, nothing would be for sale. However, wealth is not limited. Someone gaining wealth does not necessitate someone else loosing wealth. This is because trade is not a zero sum game. Others will understand even though you don’t. You claimed labourers gained the full product of their labour, which negates the entire reason Communism was invented. Communism is negated, that’s true. But that only makes communism illegitimate. Two kinds of people propagate Marxism and communism; Rubes who are duped and end up killed, and frauds who expect to come out on top If they get their way. Ultimately, a few of them come out on top. I take you for the former. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
3
points
You’re always so obviously backwards. Do you have anything other than empty rhetoric, Amarel? No offence but I'm getting extremely bored of the delusional things you say. All of humanity started off in poverty. Poverty is when you have less than other people you idiotic fucking dickhead. At least learn the meaning of the words you use in your own lies. When humanity started off there was no poverty and no riches, you fucking idiot. It is systems such as capitalism which have introduced financial inequality into our lives. It is not the default human condition you sophist Nazi wanker. Capitalism requires the institution of property rights, which hinders others, such as monarchs and communists, from confiscating the wealth I created. It didn't hinder Hitler very much. Or Mugabe. Or Gaddafi. Or Kagame. Or any of the other hundreds of dictators who have all done precisely what you claim cannot be done. That’s one reason why the world has been increasingly better off as capitalism has spread. The world was becoming increasingly better off for tens of thousands of years before capitalism spread because that is the way evolution and progress work: things get better over time. Filthy liar that you are, it appears you are trying to conflate technological evolution with capitalism. Technological evolution demonstrably occurs under every system ever developed, so to claim capitalism is its cause contradicts the historical record and once again exposes you as a purposeful deceiver. Why don't you look up who invented satellite technology, dickhead? You’ll never win. On the contrary, I can't lose. The days of parasites like you, who get fat off the hard work of other people is rapidly coming to an end and you know it as well as I do. Relatively is the key word here. You don't get to define the emphasis in other people's writing, you narcissistic Nazi cretin. Shut up. I have become more wealthy over the course of time You have become wealthy from the subjugation of your own species, which makes you a monster. My absolute wealth has increased despite being relatively destitute compared to Bill Gates. Without even reading anything more I already know the deception you are angling for, because I have pointed it out to you approximately six times previously. As wages (i.e. wealth) rise so do the price of goods. This is called inflation and it is the part of capitalism which GUARANTEES that few people will ever become very wealthy. Relative poverty doesn’t matter If I am relatively poorer than the people who lived two hundred years ago then clearly that matters extraordinarily because it proves capitalism doesn't work you idiotic fucking dickhead. Why can't you just shut up? Why do you have to go on and on and on, looking for different angles to sell the exact same pack of lies? With Capitalism, absolute poverty decreases There is no such thing as absolute poverty because poverty can only be measured relative to something which isn't poverty, you insanely ignorant, cretinously stupid, economically illiterate imbecile. Poverty is a by-product of hierarchical systems of economy such as capitalism. You are literally claiming that the cause of poverty has improved poverty and it makes me want to punch you straight in your lying Jewish face. If resources were not limited, nothing would be for sale. Good. If nothing was for sale, bastards like you couldn't get rich from exploitation. Are you actually trying to convince me that it is better I pay for something than get it for free? Someone gaining wealth does not necessitate someone else loosing wealth. You are contradicting basic maths and the previous post in which I debunked this fucking farcical nonsense. If the resources are finite and we represent them with the number 100, and Ted owns 50 and Bill owns 40, then it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Steve to surpass 10 without either Ted or Bill getting poorer. Stop saying ridiculous things and shut the fuck up you retard. This is because trade is not a zero sum game LOL. Right. Maths is wrong because "trade is not a zero sum game". Good one. Your obscure little platitude is a logical red herring which does not serve to justify your premise in any visible capacity. In fact, nobody claimed trade was a zero sum game in the first place, which also makes it a straw man argument. You are just writing literal nonsense and trying to leap over your lack of reason by throwing out vague political catchphrases. It's fucking pathetic. Others will understand even though you don’t. Do not try to use the Emperor Has No Clothes fallacy on me, you idiotic subhuman twit. You cannot explain the reasoning behind your argument because it contradicts the laws of mathematics and it is as simple as that. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
3
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
You couldn't possibly be on here this much and have a job, now coulf you? Bronto, you have literally written eight times more posts than anybody else on this entire website on JUST YOUR MAIN ACCOUNT, not counting the dozens of alts you use to proliferate your vile Zio-fascist propaganda. The listings are on the front page for everybody to see. Hypocrisy and double standards just come naturally to you, don't they? Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
Bronto, you have literally written eight times more posts than anybody else on this entire website on JUST YOUR MAIN ACCOUNT Nut uh. not counting the dozens of alts you use to proliferate your vile Zio-fascist propaganda. I have one account. You are mistaken. The listings are on the front page for everybody to see. Hypocrisy and double standards just come naturally to you, don't they? You imagined the whole thing. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
0
points
Hypocrisy and double standards just come naturally to you, don't they? But without double standards, you'd have no standards though. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
The world was becoming increasingly better off for tens of thousands of years before capitalism spread because that is the way evolution and progress work: things get better over time. The modern west is the richest civilization in history because of...capitalism... Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
You are contradicting basic maths and the previous post in which I debunked this fucking farcical nonsense. If the resources are finite and we represent them with the number 100, and Ted owns 50 and Bill owns 40, then it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Steve to surpass 10 without either Ted or Bill getting poorer. Stop saying ridiculous things and shut the fuck up you retard. If Ted's 40 is 500 million dollars, wtf is Ted bitching about like a hound? Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
2
points
2
points
No bronto, a millionaire is in poverty IF ONLY BILLIONAIRES EXIST. 1)Right...because if only billionaires exist, there are millionaires... 2)Let us look at what you actually said. "Poverty is when you have less than other people you idiotic fucking dickhead" 3)I have less than my neighbor. I am not in poverty... Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
I have less than my neighbor. I am not in poverty... Your neighbour is not other people. Your neighbour is one other person. Honestly, you're just fucking pathetic. You can't even hide behind an attack on semantics without contradicting yourself. Idiot. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
1
point
1
point
Right...because if only billionaires exist, there are millionaires... Our entire conversation has been about a millionaire so either you have a 30 second memory or you think attacking semantics will stop you drowning in your own spectacular stupidity. Let me write this really slowly so it penetrates that rock thick neo-Nazi skull... The millionaire in our example is only in poverty if everybody else in the world except him is a billionaire. You purposefully misrepresented this fact because you are a deceiver and a filthy Jew supremacist swine. And stop upvoting yourself you fucking dunce. You're an idiot with nothing intelligent to say about any topic on Earth. Literally nobody on this website would upvote one of your posts, ever. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
Kids in Germany used to practice swearing allegiance to Hitler. Another practice I am sure you sympathise with. 1)So no rebuttal to capitalism being natural. 2)Naaah. I have no need for socialist white guys who trash Christianity and praise Islam. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
1
point
1
point
It didn't hinder Hitler very much. Who was a rabid socialist... https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/AdolfHitler Or Mugabe. Ideologically an African nationalist, during the 1970s and 1980s he identified as a Marxist–Leninist, although after the 1990s self-identified only as a socialist. His policies have been described as Mugabeism." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RobertMugabe Or Gaddafi. An Islamist... Claiming Islam is far right? And you can't understand why we think libs are bafoons concerning Islam... The further right they are, the more you defend them eh nom? That is until you need to throw an Islamist into a list of evil dictators for debate expediency... Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
Who was a rabid socialist... You're a fucking liar bronto. The Nazis were the precise political opposite of socialists. Nazism is a form of fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Stop telling lies you fucking worthless toad. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist! "Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager. [2] Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge. "Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager. [3] There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew. Munich - Speech of April 12, 1922 At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it "National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. Munich - Speech of April 12, 1922 There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race. Munich - Speech of April 12, 1922 Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race. Munich - Speech of April 12, 1922 If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle [race], if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter IV, “Personality and the Ideal of the People’s State,” Trans. Marco Roberto, MVR, 2015, p. 33, first published 1926 In our movement the two extremes come together: the Communists from the Left and the officers and students. These two have always been the most active elements, and it was the greatest crime that they used to oppose each other in street fights… Our party has already succeeded in uniting these two utter extremes within the ranks of our storm troops. They will form the core of the great German liberation movement, in which all without distinction will stand together when the day comes to say: ‘The Nation arises, the storm is breaking!’ As quoted in Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power, Konrad Heiden, Boston, MA, Beacon Press, 1969, p. 147, first published 1944. Part of Hitler’s quote also cited in Totalitarianism: Part Three of The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt, A Harvest Book, 1985, footnote, p. 7 Zweites Buch (1928) Online at the Internet Archive The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. It knows no Germanising or Teutonising, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own Folk. It will never see in the subjugated, so called Germanised, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone Folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our Folk. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
1
point
2
points
Things got better under capitalism. And every other system, including Communism and Nazism. Your point appears to be that you have no point. I am summarily shocked at this because you are usually such an insightful and profound contributor. ROFLMAO. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
1
point
Show us technology advancing under Timocracy. Jesus Christ you're just so inexplicably insane. Give me an example of a timocratic civilisation and I will explain how and why it was more technologically advanced at its end than it was at its beginning. P.S. "Developed" implies it has been tried and isn't a theoretical construct derived from the minds of drunken Greek philosophers. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
Do you have anything other than empty rhetoric, Amarel? Sure, you just usually respond to the sentences that are less substantive because you’re a troll. No offence but Haha ok. Poverty is when you have less than other people Add wealth to the list of things you don’t understand. Relative wealth compares yours to that of others. Absolute wealth compares yours to a given baseline, usually on a timeline. Everyone has less than other people most of the time. The single richest person in the world will not maintain that financial position. Does that mean they are in poverty when they have less than other people? No, of course not. When humanity started off there was no poverty and no riches The first time animals manufactured things, they created value. The first time people traded, they created wealth. Money is not the same as wealth. I suppose money is also on the list of things you don’t understand. It is systems such as capitalism which have introduced financial inequality into our lives. Economic freedom (capitalism) is not that old. Financial inequality is much older. Under capitalism, financial inequality doesn’t matter. The difference is property rights, which I suppose you also don’t understand. It didn't hinder Hitler very much. Or Mugabe. Or Gaddafi. Or Kagame. Or any of the other hundreds of dictators Right. They didn’t have strong institutions meant to protect property rights which, as I said, are required for capitalism. Do you know what that means? It means that the lack of property rights, such as that under dictators, is not capitalism. The world was becoming increasingly better off for tens of thousands of years before capitalism spread because that is the way evolution and progress work It’s cute that you think wealth creation is a product of evolution. But North Koreans are the same species as South Koreans. The human ability to keep information over time allowed for a very slow improvement over time despite the lack of appropriate economic institutions. Discovering healthy economic institutions, such as property rights and free enterprise, allowed for the massive improvements that never occur where they are not present. As they become more present in more places, the improvement has spread. Again, North VS South Korea (same species). 1970’s Hong Kong VS 1970’s China (same species) 1980’s East and West Germany (same species). Pre-USSR VS Post-USSR Estonia (Same species). The list really goes on and on. Evolution didn’t do it, Capitalist institutions did. Why don't you look up who invented satellite technology, dickhead? You mean while their people starved being told to be patient for yet another 5 year central plan? The USA was creating the same tech while our poor acquired obesity problems. And the tech was superior too. On the contrary, I can't lose. I only wish you actually acted on your beliefs. If you do, the people defending themselves against you will kill you. As wages (i.e. wealth) rise so do the price of goods. This is called inflation and it is the part of capitalism which GUARANTEES that few people will ever become very wealthy. Ok. So inflation is another concept you don’t grasp. Wages, like money, is not the same as wealth. Inflation occurs when the supply of money increases. It causes the trade value of a unit of money to decrease, which causes the prices of goods and services (such as labor) to increase. If it happens slowly and predictably, it has no impact on wealth. Deflation can also occur, and it’s worse than slow inflation. This is because the trade value of goods and services (rather than money) goes down. It used to happen all time under the gold standard, which was also capitalistic. More and more people are becoming more and more wealthy all the time, despite inflation. Here’s a tip. If you want to understand economics, read an author who knows economics rather than Marx If I am relatively poorer than the people who lived two hundred years ago then clearly that matters Right, because absolute wealth has increased over time. You are richer now than if you lived 200 years ago, thanks to capitalism. But wealth within a system (or economic unit) over time is absolute wealth. Relative wealth, which is what we are discussing, is a measure of what you currently have compared to others within a system. That doesn’t matter. Why can't you just shut up? If you want people like me to shut up, you will have to physically shut us up. But you’re a man of words on the internet. Why do you have to go on and on and on Because on occasion it is fun to teach people about economics. Correcting your economic ignorance seems like as good a time as any. There is no such thing as absolute poverty I’ll add this to your extensive list of things you do not understand. Poverty is a by-product of hierarchical systems of economy such as capitalism. There is no such thing as a non-hierarchical economic system. That’s because people value different things differently. Which means they will value what others offer differently. Which means people will trade different amounts of value to different people differently. All attempts to destroy economic hierarchy destroy people’s freedom to interact as they choose and ultimately destroy people. it makes me want to punch you straight in your lying Jewish face. You always have talked tough from the safety of your anonymity. There are people who promote the free market, just like I do, where you live. Go punch them in the face. Seriously. Right after the the greedy bastards refuse to buy your $10,000 glass of water. Are you actually trying to convince me that it is better I pay for something than get it for free? Resources ARE Limited. There are no free lunches. Someone always pays. Things do not become more available but by economic freedom. You are contradicting basic maths No I’m not. You’re conflating money and wealth. It’s the reason you believe trade is a zero sum game. It’s not. I have thoroughly explained why. If the resources are finite and we represent them with the number 100, and Ted owns 50 and Bill owns 40, then it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Steve to surpass 10 without either Ted or Bill getting poorer. Resources are finite, wealth is not. If Steve uses his 10 resource units to build a house, while Bill and Ted do nothing with their combined 90, then Steve becomes wealthier. A grove of trees is not worth as much as the beautiful cabin one might produce with them. That’s wealth creation. If Ted is building houses with his resources and Bill is building boats, and they trade, then more wealth is created in the trade alone. Both are better off than before they traded since now they both have houses and boats, rather than one or the other. shut the fuck up you retard. No. You can do absolutely nothing to halt my promotion of sound economic principles. If I am not informing people here, I am doing it elsewhere. This is why you display your impotence every time you make demands of me. I don’t mind because you also display my liberty. nobody claimed trade was a zero sum game in the first place No, but your arguments and examples demonstrate that you believe this to be the case. vague political catchphrases It’s a common economic phrase. Do not try to use the Emperor Has No Clothes fallacy on me I think you mean appeal to popular majority. I’m not appealing to the majority, I am addressing them. The majority can clearly understand what I am saying, your misrepresentations notwithstanding. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
Sure, you just usually respond to the sentences that are less substantive because you’re a troll. You claim your sentences are "substantive" and I'm the troll? Ahahahaha! If by "substantive" you mean that they contradict themselves with unerring frequency then I agree. Otherwise, you're just another pathetic far right wanker who has stayed up half the night to write me a ten thousand word love letter because you're desperate to feel like you have defeated me. A classic symptom of narcissism, given that you have absolutely no legitimate argument, very little intelligence and only a small bag of deceptions from which to draw. Given the incredible length of your essay, it seems the only advantage you have over me is time. Add wealth to the list of things you don’t understand. This is another immature ad hominem attack with no relationship to anything. You might as well accuse me of having a big nose, child. If you can't refute my argument then just fucking well say so. Don't try to deflect your way out of it by making generic, deliberately vague accusations with no basis in fact. Relative wealth compares yours to that of others. Absolute wealth compares yours to a given baseline Who gives this baseline? BECAUSE UNLESS IT IS GOD, IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE BASELINE, IS IT? How can you be this fucking wilfully stupid just for the sake of arguing with me? There is no universal baseline on what constitutes wealthy and hence there is no absolute wealth. DOES IT COMPUTE YOU STUPID, LANGUAGE-ABUSING NEO-NAZI WANK STAIN? The first time animals manufactured things, they created value So, to repeat, when humanity started off there was no poverty and no riches. I am perplexed as to why you think I would be OK with you changing what the argument is about, while simultaneously pretending you haven't just changed what the argument is about. Would you like a chance to go back and read what the subject of the argument was? Because you seem to be extremely confused. Economic freedom (capitalism) is not that old Economic slavery (capitalism) forces people to work to create wealth for a select few individuals, and to pay the cost for those individuals when it all goes wrong, as we saw illustrated in 2008. You have provided us with no reasoning on why you equate monetary pyramid systems with freedom, and grandiloquent claims such as these require extensive proofs. It appears that all you are interested in doing is abusing language to create pro-capitalist propaganda which falls apart at the first hint of scrutiny. It’s cute that you think wealth creation is a product of evolution It's much cuter that you think wealth is objectively created. It's almost childlike in its naivety. Wealth doesn't exist objectively at all, so it is hilarious that you could actually be stupid enough to believe something which doesn't physically exist can be created. When banks make profit from risking other people's money they "create" a series of numbers on a computer screen. The value we give to all forms of wealth is entirely arbitrary (i.e. it is decided by us) but you seem to be arguing that there is some sort of invisible, magnificent deity who has a "baseline" for deciding how much wealth is worth. It's very amusing because it's just so stupid and obviously false. Thanks for the essay, but I'm bored of reading it now because you are so stupid and dishonest. It makes me sick reading your lies if I'm absolutely honest. You twist, warp and manipulate language in any way possible to disguise your glaring fallacies and when that fails you just resort to textbook denial. You mean while their people starved Your people are starving too, so hadn't you better get your own house in order before criticising dictatorships from seventy years ago? What does that even have to do with who invented satellite technology in the first place? It has nothing to do with it, does it? You just ignored my argument completely, changed the subject and attacked me. Well, two can play at that game I'm afraid. Here are some facts about poverty in America:- US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world. US inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries Neglected tropical diseases, including Zika, are increasingly common in the USA. It has been estimated that 12 million Americans live with a neglected parasitic infection In terms of access to water and sanitation the US ranks 36th in the world. In the OECD the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ So, as you can see, you are the pot calling the kettle black, aren't you? Ok. So inflation is another concept you don’t grasp. OK, I'm done reading. This is a pointless discussion because you are delusional, stupid and dishonest. Every single time you lose a point you respond by telling me I don't understand. That is not debate. That is mental illness. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
OK, I'm done reading. Ok. It wasn’t really for you, but thanks for providing the backdrop against which I could educate on basic economic principles. For further examples and more in depth descriptions of the concepts that Nom can’t grasp, I recommend any given macroeconomics text book. Charles Mankiw is comprehensive. If you’re ambitious you can try “Human Action” by Mises. You can also check literally any prominent economist at all for further support of my positions on supply and demand, the principles of trade (such as mutual benefit), wealth creation, inflation causes and effects, and anything else I referred to. As a warning, be sure to read the works of actual economists rather than sociologists such as Marx. They lack necessary rigor and understanding of economic issues and too often drive their data with their bias rather than vice verse. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
2
points
Ok. It wasn’t really for you Who are you under the impression you replied to, you delusional narcissistic moron? but thanks for providing the backdrop against which I could educate on basic economic principles. Just more of the same empty rhetoric you have been posting all day and night. "I am king of the world and I have educated you about everything!" Your claims lack an iota of reasoned argument or material evidence to support them, and when they are disproved you ignore it completely. It requires no skill to detach yourself from reality and make unreasonable statements, so I am perplexed why you even bother. You can also check literally any prominent economist at all for further support of my positions LOL. You contradicted the most basic laws of mathematics you fucking IDIOT!!!!!! You can check literally any math teacher in the entire world for further proof that everything you have thus far said is stupid and demonstrably false. You don't understand what the concept of finite means or why it proves that wealth is relative to resources. It isn't that what you are saying is false. It is that I have proven to you that it is false, but you are still arguing with me. That is what makes you such a retard. You simply are unprepared to accept reason or reality in any capacity. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
2
points
Here are two fine examples of your nonsensical claims:- With Capitalism, absolute poverty decreases I proved there is no such thing as absolute poverty and it was as easy as illustrating that poverty is qualified differently in different places. There is no absolute definition of poverty and hence your claim cannot be true. Your response was to attack me with the accusation that I didn't understand. Then you quickly changed the subject. Someone gaining wealth does not necessitate someone else loosing wealth. I proved the opposite, using simple math that a 10 year old could follow. If Bill controls 50 percent of the finite resources with his wealth and Ted controls 40 percent of the finite resources with his wealth, then Simon cannot possibly control more than 10 percent of the resources with his wealth unless either Bill or Ted become relatively poorer. Your response was to attack me with the accusation that I didn't understand. Then you quickly changed the subject. It has just been empty rhetoric from you all night. Every single time your arguments are debunked you continue on as if nothing happened. But something did happen. Your arguments were debunked. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
Absolute wealth and relative wealth are well known economic principles that can easily be looked up. So this lie won’t work for you. The definition of money and economic gains from trade are also easily researchable. Pretending that money and wealth are the same in order to pretend that economics is disproved by math only highlights your dishonesty. I haven’t only stayed that you are wrong, I have thoroughly shown why. I illustrated why trade occurs to mutual benefit. You pretending to buy paper cups under pain of death isn’t fooling anyone. It was kind of fun schooling you, though you are incapable of learning. You can fuck off now. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
Absolute wealth and relative wealth are well known economic principles that can easily be looked up. Flat Earth is a well known principle which can easily be looked up too. But let's not focus on that. Let's focus on the fact that you are LYING. A simple search of the term "absolute wealth" in Google produces no references to or articles written by economists. Here is the proof:- You are just a shocking liar and a complete fucking idiot. Even if you were right your claim is still a fallacious appeal to authority predicated on the fact that you do not understand the concept and cannot explain it. It is embarrassing having to read through your nonsense. You would not know what truth was if you fell the fuck over it. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
Flat earth isn’t a scientific principle But I have demonstrated to you multiple times that the concept of absolute wealth is not a scientific principle. You simply have refused to acknowledge that you have been disproved. Absolute wealth is an economic I demonstrated to you less than five minutes ago that absolute wealth is not an economic principle:- One that I have explained several time now You have done absolutely no such thing, you idiotic liar. What you have done is refuse to acknowledge that wealth is relative to poverty. Your latest "explanation" involved telling me that wealth is absolute because it is relative to whoever is measuring it. Fucking shut up, you silly lying moron. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
Absolute wealth is an economic How many times do you need to be proven wrong? A million? Wealth Is Relative – Remember This And Be Happier https://financialpanther.com/ All Wealth Is Relative Wealth https://www.fool.com/investing/general/ Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
Fool.com. Nice “An absolute value is a business valuation method that uses discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to determine a company's financial worth. The absolute value method differs from the relative value models that examine what a company is worth compared to its competitors.” Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
0
points
I proved there is no such thing as absolute poverty and it was as easy as illustrating that poverty is qualified differently in different places You proved you'd take a dick in the ass though. A big dick too. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
When I say you don’t understand wealth, it isn’t ad hominem as you constantly conflate it with money. The baseline for absolute wealth over time is chosen by whoever is measuring the absolute wealth over time. One can choose any given starting point in time as a baseline to measure absolute wealth. Comparing you, to you earlier is a measure of absolute wealth. Comparing wealth of a nation today with 200 years ago is a measure of absolute wealth. Comparing you today to others today is a measure of relative wealth. It doesn’t get simpler. So, to repeat, when humanity started off there was no poverty and no riches. Humans have always lived in hierarchies. Money is not wealth. This is not a change of topic, you just can’t connect related concepts. capitalism) forces people to work to create wealth for a select few individuals, and to pay the cost for those individuals when it all goes wrong, as we saw illustrated in 2008. Bailouts are not capitalistic, it’s socialized loss. “Moral hazard” is the capitalistic principle that is against government bailouts. Your people are starving too Our poor are dying from diabetes, not starvation. Anyway, you can fuck off now. I’ve had my fun exposing you. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
When I say you don’t understand wealth, it isn’t ad hominem That is exactly what it is you boring fucking delusional child. Whenever I debunk something you say you derail the argument because that is what idiots like you do. It is all you know how to do. you constantly conflate it with money. Can you name one wealthy person in the entire world who doesn't have any money? No, you cannot. Not that it matters because not once during this idiotic conversation have I claimed that money and wealth are the same thing. You are a pathological liar who obviously has no footing in reality. The baseline for absolute wealth I have demonstrated to you at least three times that there is no such thing as either absolute wealth or absolute poverty, because both of these terms are relative to each other. Why are you persisting in trying to force the same argument down my throat that I have already debunked three times? You simply do not listen when other people disprove what you say, which almost certainly is a symptom of mental illness. is chosen by whoever is measuring the absolute wealth over time. Oh dear. You really are quite unwell, aren't you? The baseline for absolute wealth cannot be relative because relative is the opposite of absolute. A variable which changes based upon who is doing the measuring is a relative variable, not an absolute variable. You are a fucking idiot and I am embarrassed that I have nothing better to do right now than point it out. Humans have always lived in hierarchies You are trying to change the subject AGAIN, while furthermore altering the original premise from "hierarchical systems of economy" to "hierarchy" so you can pretend a physical hierarchy is the same as an economic one. Literally everything you write is an attempt to distort what the other person has said. It is... PATHETIC. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
Can you name one wealthy person in the entire world who doesn't have any money? That question says a lot about your ignorance. Money serves as a store, standard and means of exchange of wealth. Of course wealthy people have it. But money is not synonymous with wealth. Everything we have discussed is related to the fact that voluntary trade is necessarily beneficial to both parties involved as repeatedly illustrated. Unfortunately, you are not capable of seeing the connection between related concepts. I have been changing the topic, I’ve been elaborating. Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
That question says a lot about your ignorance. Your reply says a lot about how much of an answer you have. Money serves as a store, standard and means of exchange of wealth. Of course wealthy people have it. So in other words, my question is perfectly legitimate and the premise upon which it is based is true. But it also makes me ignorant for asking it. Thanks for letting me know you fucking stupid cunt. Everything we have discussed is related to the fact that voluntary trade is necessarily beneficial to both parties Your language is false and you are continuing to ignore this fact, despite it being physically demonstrated to you many times over. Trade is not always voluntary in that it can be coerced, and it is not necessarily beneficial to both parties. You have been given several real world examples of this, including the scenario where a thirsty man in the desert is offered a glass of water for 10,000 dollars. You simply ignore the proof that your argument is false, deflect and come back with exactly the same argument later. As I have pointed out to you today several times: this is likely a symptom of serious mental illness. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
1
point
Our poor are dying from diabetes Amarel, I have just plainly demonstrated to you with the application of UN statistics that poverty (and hence food shortage) is a real problem in America. Your replies are bizarre and nonsensically attempt to circumvent or distort any proof you have been given that you are wrong. 16 million American kids struggle with hunger each year. An estimated 48.8 million Americans , including 16.2 million children, live in households that lack the means to get enough nutritious food on a regular basis. https://mashable.com/2016/07/14/ Please. Just shut the fuck up. You are suffering the effects of psychiatric illness. Side: Russians don't GET capitalism
They ask kids if they are hungry and then call it a hunger problem. Meanwhile Michelle Obama tried for 8 years to get kids to burn calories. Poverty is a problem, but hunger is not. That’s because of the increased absolute wealth of our poor over the poor of previous generations. But there’s that economic principle again. Did you make it past the first sentence this time? Side: Asians GET capitalism bigly
1
point
|
5
points
2
points
|