democracy?

[funkykeyboard]

Just thought you might be interested in this, found it quite funny.

In Hong Kong there was mass demonstrations because a committee, constituting 0.02% of society, would get to select the candidates.

"Lean to the green". In America 0.02% of American society get to select the candidates.as George Carlin said "the best democracy money can buy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE

Its simple corruption. No need for an hour of video. Theres many ways america is corrupt.

obviously, but?
just like state capitalism in China? The Chinese rich, the ones who control the means of production "the central committee", want to control the candidates in Hong Kong, so the candidates pursue the interests of the rich rather than the people. In America it's the same. The rich want to control the candidates in America, so the candidates pursue the interests of the rich rather than the people. Why is America better if it's doing the same thing as China, disenfranchising the people?

No taxation without representation? As class systems they are both doing exactly the same thing, putting the interests of the few in control of the "decision-making process of how we split that which we produce amongst ourselves" politics.

LC earlier decried democracy as "mob rule".

You both call for a night watchmen state when it comes to policing the rich, but call for a bigger more proactive state when it comes to policing the people.

you don't really want democracy?

PS. I put it this year to not detract from your discussion with LC about universal determinism.

[Burgerman]

Democracy is mob rule. But thats just a rude way of saying the people get to decide. So thats fine! How did the orange idiot get in? The PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM. They could have refused. They could have voted for you if you had said you were going to stop that corruption. But you didnt bother to stand. And in america anyone could stand.

The other difference is that in the US this is possible, and you can also vote trump out in november. And choose a poor candidate that stands against corruption. if you want. And in the US you have freedom of choice and you have human rights. Thats why they are rioting agaist the LOSS OF FREEDOM in hong kong. They dont want to be taken over by a totalitarian system that takes everything from them. Theres your difference.

[funkykeyboard]

the whole point of the video, and any serious analysis of the American electoral system is, no, it's not the case that just anyone can stand to be the president of America. To do that, you have to "lean to the green". The rich people choose the candidates, ONLY then do the people get to vote for 1 of the rich peoples to candidates. "America has the best democracy money can buy" George Carlin

For me the Americans have the same method of "exploitation" they hav in China. The same class system. They're just better at hiding their exploitation behind the figleaf of democracy.

All that said, if I had to choose between the 2 I choose America to live in. But I would rather live in Finland than America. More left-wing, and the people in Finland are officially happier than the people in America.

I still haven't read George Reisman properly, but I do think though it may be possible to have a better capitalist system, there needs to be some people's control of the broad objectives of the system. There also needs to be away to clean up the corruption.. Multinationals are now taking the piss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5vsnX1UD1wall%20you

[Burgerman]

Wrong. ANYONE can stand in the USA. And ANYONE can vote them in. YOU can start a new political party tomorrow.

Corruption? Yes lots! Massive distortion of the capitalist system? Yes.

So VOTE in someone that will FIX those things. Thats what governments are for. If you all vote for a rich corrupt orange mentally ill orangotang thats what you will get. And they did. So that must be what they WANT. Just because you dont doesent make you right. People rejected the left in the UK (after the 3 year attempt to ignore the people and brexit vote, boy did they get a hammering! Worst labour socialist lefty result since the 30s) and frequently in the US too.

That bullshit video link is rediculous by the way. The part where they basically dumped socialissm for capitalism which made them rich is right. But you didnt factor in the brexit! Theres going to be a border in ireland. And their biggest export market? Yes... Great britain. So they will lose a huge amount of their exports. Screwed.

[martin007]

The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that only one.

In democracy it is possible (in theory) to modify the functioning of the system and to guide the rulers without using violence.

[funkykeyboard]

Wrong. ANYONE can stand in the USA. And ANYONE can vote them in. YOU can start a new political party tomorrow.

Corruption? Yes lots! Massive distortion of the capitalist system? Yes.

So VOTE in someone that will FIX those things. Thats what governments are for. If you all vote for a rich corrupt orange mentally ill orangotang thats what you will get. And they did. So that must be what they WANT. Just because you dont doesent make you right. People rejected the left in the UK (after the 3 year attempt to ignore the people and brexit vote, boy did they get a hammering! Worst labour socialist lefty result since the 30s) and frequently in the US too.

That bullshit video link is rediculous by the way. The part where they basically dumped socialissm for capitalism which made them rich is right. But you didnt factor in the brexit! Theres going to be a border in ireland. And their biggest export market? Yes... Great britain. So they will lose a huge amount of their exports. Screwed.

wrong!

It doesn't matter who you elect, no government can change the abuse of power by multinationals and international money because multinationals and international money are more powerful than national governments. As the story of the Irish economic "boom" delineates.

[Burgerman]

The irish boom came from finally realising that socialism was a joke and they embraced capitalism. So Rubbish.

However, being thick, they stayed in the EU. And the EU think that allowing them to have lower taxes, and so encourage all the rich companies and their investments to move to ireland (low corporate taxation is what made them rich) is unfair to other EU countries. So they are now going to dictate that all EU countries have the same corporate tax levels. To make a "level playing field"... I.E far more taxes across the EU in order to bankrupt the EU sorry I mean suck all the money they can from the golden goose to prop up the poor, lazy, ineficient countries. Socialism 101. And also ireland whe were PREVIOUSLY a net recipient of the EU money. But after brexit, are now expected to pay in 5x more than they get back! Oh how I laughed. They tried to screw us over brexit. Now they are likely to be leaving too!

If you vote people into power that stand on the promise to stop crony captalism then that stops.

Latest example, northop gruman, boeing etc were recently alloted a massive sum to inefficiently launch a few miliatary satelites. At massive cost per launch on expendable rockets by the likes of the ULA. While spacex a private company, that have developed reusable rockets 10x faster than nasa could, can launch them at 1/5th the cost, and applied competitively for the contract were given just a small amount of those contracts. So that is a massive waste of public money. And the bulk of the contracts and $$$ went to the super slow and inefficient companies. And to nasa. Thats cronyism. Start locking up crony capitalists because its NOT capitalism where theres no fair competition. They will rapidly stop doing it. They dont want to be locked up. Allow it to contunue unquestioned and it will. Everywhere. We have full government department devoted to making sure these things are stopped. They are asking the public to point out any unfair trade practices. And likewise we have full agencies devoted to breaking up big companies such as google or amazon because they are basically too powerful and it removes the competition from the free market. You all allow this. You must vote for people across yopur country that will stop it.

Thats what democracy is for. If nobody stands for this, then obviously they dont think its a vote winner. Not enough people care.

[Burgerman]

Of course we dont have the type of "democracy" seen in places like china, venuzuala, north korea, russia...

The socialist world hates real democracy. It cant stay in power when the people realise whats happening. So they become ever more corrupt. Ever more controlling. Ever more extreme. Ever stronger in its idealism. And ever less rights and freedoms. It always happens. The idea that you can have a social democratic party is great at the start. But it always degenerates into what we saw across the world for most of the last century.

VLADIMIR PUTIN'S rival Alexei Navalny has been rushed to hospital in a serious condition following reports he was poisoned after drinking tea. He is now in a coma

They have "fair" elections.They have "observers" watching the votes counted and everything... Its just that any opposition candidates never seem to manage to avoid problems... Threats. Property destruction. Dissapearances. Or worse.

Belarus is another problem. The opposition that actually won the vote is in hiding. The current president declared victory. Those that disagree are badly beaten. Or worse. Great no? So they now have months of protests and strikes, and its all being ignored pretty much by the media. In the end, the people WILL get their way. They always do. Its all a matter of time. But it will all end with a massive load if bloodshed and fighting. And the way its headed putin will be the same. Eventually n korea too. Maybe a decade away.

[redder]

An outstanding example of electoral corruption is the place you revere burgerperson - the USA. leaving the financial aspect to one side (to be a success in decadent American politics fabulous wealth is necessary), in 2016 Trump received a mere 45.9 of the popular vote. Even corrupt Hilary Clinton generated 48%, (three million more votes than the odious republican candidate!).

The US body politic is a racist cesspit that systematically denies huge numbers of working class people access to any levers of change.

Little wonder you adore it.

[Burgerman]

An outstanding example of electoral corruption is the place you revere burgerperson - the USA. leaving the financial aspect to one side (to be a success in decadent American politics fabulous wealth is necessary),

No its not. If non of those people that were not fabulously rich voted for trump he would not be in power.
Likewise, if YOU with barely any wealth stood and the people wanted what you stood for, rich or poor you would get the votes.

in 2016 Trump received a mere 45.9 of the popular vote. Even corrupt Hilary Clinton generated 48%, (three million more votes than the odious republican candidate!).

And???

The US body politic is a racist cesspit that systematically denies huge numbers of working class people access to any levers of change.

ONLY if you vote for that.
And what kind of "racist cesspit" puts a black president into power?? You are rediculous.

How is the electoral college chosen?
The election of the president of the United States is a two-step process. First, voters cast ballots on Election Day in each state. In nearly every state, the candidate who gets the most votes wins the "electoral votes" for that state, and gets that number of voters (or "electors") in the "Electoral College."

Little wonder you adore it.

When did I say I adored it?
Its fair though. And its the system that THE US CITIZENS wanted. And a part of your constitution. And the electoral college represents what you all voted for more fairly than just the big cities.

What part of this dont you like? Is it the bit that stopped the socialist idiots getting in and destroying your country? So it wouldnt matter how the system was set up. You dont like it because you lost right? Had it been the other way around then you would support the electoral college system.

The poor in the US have the highest living standards of almost any place in the world. The real problem is that being socialist thats not enough. You want the money or power that it does bring to those that are rich. You think that those with more than you OWE you something. Well they dont. You are like all socialists jealous. Thats all socialism is. A way to drag the rich down to your level, and beyond given time.

Also. Odeous trump? That means repulsive and worse. Yet he won! So only odeous to socialists! I like him. If only because he makes the left crazy.

[redder]

The people of the United States put a black President into office despite the racist nature of the American political system. The current estimate of the numbers of people who are systematically denied voting entitlements in the states is an astonishing 6.1 million, and a large proportion of that 6.1 million are people of colour. Obviously in such circumstances it is absolutely appropriate to label the US electoral system as racist. But the issue isn't just about the US state denying black people voting rights, it is centrally a social class issue. Those prevented from voting are overwhelmingly people living in deep poverty with few life chances available to them. How on earth anybody could make the claim that America is any sort of meaningful 'democracy' in the face of this extraordinary reality is mystifying BM.

A vibrant and inclusive democracy would not deny voting entitlement to over six million people. The reality is that Trump and the republican goons who put him in have no electoral interest in enfranchising those people currently denied voting rights because to do so would be the death knell for their brand of corrupt pro capitalist politics.

[Burgerman]

The people of the United States put a black President into office despite the racist nature of the American political system.

A contradition in terms. A black president was the result of the vote. So not racist is it?

The current estimate of the numbers of people who are systematically denied voting entitlements in the states is an astonishing 6.1 million, and a large proportion of that 6.1 million are people of colour.

So only 6 million out of 300 million people? Thats 2 percent! And of that you say "a large proportion" so not even 2%??? I would say that is an unbelievably good system since at least 1. something % of the population, you know the VOTERS are racist. So thats probably a better than expected outcome. I might also add... HOW ARE THEY PREVENTED FROM VOTING? Seems to me that its some bullsit lefty stuff.

Obviously in such circumstances it is absolutely appropriate to label the US electoral system as racist.

I absolutely disagree. Since the POPULATION voted every part of that system into place and those in it into place. Using a system that is written into your constitution. You may disagree with it but you are in the minority obviously. And remember that I am not a lefty. If some percentage of the population are racist then that is still their legitimate position. You might not like that but you cannot control how the population think. Even though the left are still trying to TELL us what to think. Sorry if you dont like that. Some percentage of the USA are racist. They TOO are allowed to vote.

Personally I cant stand religion. And that would affect who I voted for. Likewise I cant stand socialists, because they are destructive to the economy and all of them willfully ignorant. And I cant stand all the virtue signalling lefties, progressives, or multiculturalists that try to tell us what we are allowed to say, type, or think. And I cant stand guns in the publics hands. If I lived in the US I would be screwed as theres no sane party to vote for.

But the issue isn't just about the US state denying black people voting rights, it is centrally a social class issue.

Tell me. I am black I live in the USA. Why cant I vote?
And I am poor. Why cant I vote?
And why are you poor? You live in the easiest country in the world to make money, become self employed etc. Ask musk why he moved to the USA. With nothing other than the shirt on his back.

Those prevented from voting are overwhelmingly people living in deep poverty with few life chances available to them. How on earth anybody could make the claim that America is any sort of meaningful 'democracy' in the face of this extraordinary reality is mystifying BM.

There are no ligitimate US population that are PREVENTED from either standing for government or voting. And everyone has the same life chances, and choices unless ill or disabled. And thats what the safety net is for. One that only a rich society can afford.

A vibrant and inclusive democracy would not deny voting entitlement to over six million people.

Correct. And it doesent.

The reality is that Trump and the republican goons who put him in have no electoral interest in enfranchising those people currently denied voting rights because to do so would be the death knell for their brand of corrupt pro capitalist politics.

You may not like them and call them goons. Thats just your (losing) opinion. The people you all voted into power are voted in becaue of their opinions and views. If they dont do as they said they would, and trump has, then you can vote him out. And vote your own prefered person into power. That includes black or poor people. Thats the populations choice every few years both locally and nationally. You make many claims, but show no evidence.

Quite the opposite in fact! You showed that the system isnt racist with your imaginary 6 million blacks that are not allowed a vote. Because the system put a black president into power... WITHOUT THEM.

[redder]

im unsurprised that you do not favour proper inclusive democracy in the USA BM. The political right fear the very idea of popular control by the people because democracy might lead to demands for democratic control of national economies, which threatens the corrupt control of international capitalism and the super rich gangsters that operate it.

Here is your requested evidence of how the USA has routinely disenfranchised millions of working people down the years.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... nchisement

Your view that six million votes are inconsequential and unimportant by comparison to the overall size of the American electorate is extremely condescending and ignores the simple fact that democrat Clinton had three million more votes than republican Trump in 2016, yet Trump is president.. What sort of democracy rewards the losers? Oh, i get it, its the one you prefer. Bent, corrupt, discriminatory and racist.

[Burgerman]

You do live in some socialist left wing fantasy land dont you.

To begin with I cannot take anything in that extreme left wing rag the guardian seriously. Its mosly complete bollox. Which is why its the least read and lowest circulation figures of all the newspapers in the UK. And dragged out daily by the BBC... Its a joke paper.

2ndly if prisoners want to have the right to vote, whichever way they feel fit, they should try not being in prison. Why reward prisoners with a vote? They certanly dont deserve it. They should forfeit their rights to vote along with everything else including their freedom. Prison isnt meant to be a reward! Not that most actually do vote anyway. And they will vote both ways. So dont help your lefty cause.

As for all the rest in that paper, its just typical lefty garbage. The stuff that claims everything is bent or controlled by the rich etc etc... All the usual socialist bull. Not worth the ink.

And...

Your view that six million votes are inconsequential and unimportant by comparison to the overall size of the American electorate is extremely condescending and ignores the simple fact that democrat Clinton had three million more votes than republican Trump in 2016, yet Trump is president..

No it doesent ignore the three million more votes . And it also doesent ignore that those imagined estimated (guessed high) 6 million prisoners would likely vote in low numbers and both ways.

a. You have no idea which way those 6 million criminals etc would vote.
b. You have no idea IF they would vote and if they did how many. Since the criminal classes have little interest in politics its likely few would. And half of those may vote the "wrong" way for you... So the difference it would make is almost zero. From that UNDER 2%...
c. You would think the electoral college was very fair if they had happened to agree with you. But you are a loser so you dont like it. It exists because it stops the huge cities full of socielist lefty types having an advantageover those that live in less populated parts of your country. And is a part of your beloved constitution - all agreed to make elections FAIRER.

What sort of democracy rewards the losers? Oh, i get it, its the one you prefer. Bent, corrupt, discriminatory and racist.

Non do. And I dont prefer either in te US as I already said. You lost. Thats why trump is in power. So you DONT like it. If you dont like the system, why dont YOU stand and have that change as your no1 priority? Tell them you want to give the vote to all the prisoners. And maybe 16 years olds. Anyone you think might vote socialist to help your rediculous socialist cause. Then if the PUBLIC agree, you will win and be able to change things. Unfortunately you are all talk and bullshit. And the voters will see that! Your extremist lefty socialist ideas will be tossed out by all those with a brain.

[Burgerman]

I might add that the US was never intended to be a democracy. Because your founding fathers thought that a republic was a better more stable long term solution. It prevents the so called mob rule of democracy. It stops so called populism. It allows minority views to get a chance too. If you dont agree, then YOU better do something about it instead of whining.

[redder]

Dear oh dear. You ask for evidence that over six million US citizens are routinely denied voting rights, so i supply chapter and verse and the best you can do is come up with Trumpite horseshit about fake news because of where the evidence originated! Lazy stuff BM. If you mistrust the statistics on accuracy grounds they will be easily refuted wont they? You have not done that, because facts are facts. Try dealing with reality instead of peddling prejudice and offering diversions about prisoners.

1. Would you believe anything in fox news? Of course not. Same thing.
2. The guardian are worse than fox, only extremist socialists that believe and make up all sorts of delusional lefty bollox. In this case they even say ESTIMATED figures themselves. So would you believe an estimated figure by fox news? Quite... In any case, even if the figure is correct, we are talking about criminals that deserve to lose their rights and freedoms. So what? And as I say. Most people like that dont vote anyway. And if they did, either way. So it would make little to no difference one way or the other. Again why do you want to give criminals the vote?

The truth is that many state's in America place obstacles in the way of the voting process

Which states?
What obstacles IN DETAIL. Or its meaningless lefty bullshit talk.

to deny American citizens the democratic rights that are available to their more comfortable (and usually white) counterparts,

What OBSTACLES in detail?
Also, why wouldnt someone that has made something of themselves, runs businesses, employs people not live more comfortable lives? Is that green thing happening again?

furthermore it is the reactionary Republican Party, the Trump elements that are responsible for this outrage, because they realised a long time ago that they can determine polling outcomes provided that they disenfranchise a section of the electorate - which is what they do with regularity.

Examples in detail. And I dont mean a load of lefty wordy nonsense.

This is a vile corruption of the democratic process on a vast scale, which people of your political orientation willingly orchestrate. Shameful BM. If such things were shown to be happening in any of your 'enemy' nations (Cuba? China? Russia? etc etc) you would be rightly outraged, and you would have my support.

You mean like the poisoned coffee or the mysterious burning down of opposition houses and offices, and way worse that happens in socialist countries and places like the crimea? You get a free vote there. But theres never any opposition
Again, clear evidenced examples of this required?

But because of your insane acceptance of the primacy of the American empire's lunatic economics all you can do parrot racist Trump's political agenda. Absolutely awful.

I honestly cant make sence of this sentence.
Try and break it down into some facts and logical reasoned stuff for us sane people please. Do you mean the economics that give you one of the highest living standards on the planet? Maybe I am missing something.

[Burgerman]

I added my replies to YOUR post in error and cant be bothered to fix it. So... The above posts has my replies.

Keep forgetting you are scottish. Your wonderful socialist leader has all but bankrupted scotland. And will if you leave the UK and get no more handouts from the conservative britain/england. Esp if she signs you back up to the EUSSR slowly disintegrating socialist poverty club. That will fail and go poorer and poorer as time goes on. As all socialist groups and countries always do.

[redder]

Take a look at Floridas 2018 Amendment 4 if you want an example of Republican subversion of the democratic process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4

[Burgerman]

I dont agree with giving criminals the right to vote. They gave up those rights when commiting crimes against people and society. Would you want the guy that raped your daughter or murdered your mum to vote? What if they just beat you up a robbed you and a bunch of others? However if they voted to allow it or stop it, then its democratic. I agree with that. It would obviously make sod all difference to the election results anyway.

Because most wouldnt vote. Have you ever visited a prison? Not exactly full of intellectuals or great thinkers. Most dont know who is the current prime minister or US president. They are just not the type and dont follow or understand politics. And those FEW that did vote, would do so both ways... So no gains for either party. If there was it would be insignificant. The idea that they do this on purpose is some lefty nonsense. The difference it would make one way or another is way less than a rounding error.

So its all a load of rediculous and unsupported bull to say that they are doing it to get more votes... As usual you have tried to compare things that are not comparable. And unsupported by evidence. That is democratic anyway. You dont really do logic do you.

[redder]

Whether you (or i ) support giving voter entitlements to those who have previously fallen foul of the law is immaterial to the argument BM. This is a discussion regarding democracy, and in that context the people of Florida, (or 5,148,926 ) of them, a full 64%, decided that those who have paid their penalty and served their sentences should be re-enfranchised. Because Florida was/is a crucial 'swing seat', the Republican cheats who control the Floridian state subsequently manoeuvred and essentially introduced a 'pay to vote' system to deny that electorate their voice. All to get racist Trump into office. The loathsome anti democratic politics of the Republicans behind these moves lays bare the utter contempt that those of you on the far right hold for democracy. You have already demonstrated your personal contempt for the voting process with your insulting characterisation of democracy as "mob rule" ( presumably to be resisted and subverted at every turn?). It is worth recalling that democracy, even of the limited form that exists in the US and elsewhere, was won with the political struggle of millions of ordinary people who wanted a voice, and often gave their blood and their lives to achieve it.

Trump and the Republicans scoff at that noble history - and the orange cretin got into office after losing a rigged election. He has no democratic legitimacy, and he was willingly assisted by bought and paid for Republican Party no marks. That you applaud says it all really.

[Burgerman]

Whether you (or i ) support giving voter entitlements to those who have previously fallen foul of the law is immaterial to the argument BM.

True. I would go with the DEMOCRATIC result of the question.
But you still always ignore the fact that its a microscopic percentage of the population that would vote even if they have the chance. And that those that do, a handful, will vote BOTH ways. So to say that this is all planned to get the vote to swing the correct way, is rediculous. Your logic is dumb. Plus that decision was made by both democrats and conservatives. And they too were voted in by the people.

This is a discussion regarding democracy, and in that context the people of Florida, (or 5,148,926 ) of them, a full 64%, decided that those who have paid their penalty and served their sentences should be re-enfranchised.

The discussion is about democracy. And the US is not a democracy. Its a republic. You dont have or claim to have a democracy. So under your system, they agreed (BOTH SIDES) that they should get their voting rights back. Question. What if they all vote the wrong way? Its rediculous to thing]k that
a) it was done on purpose to influence the vote. Because logically it makes zero sense anyway.
b) it was a vote by democratically elected people of BOTH sides of the argument.
What we really have is some conspiracy theory nutjob stuff from the losers. Your side... And it doesent even make any logical sense.

Because Florida was/is a crucial 'swing seat', the Republican cheats who control the Floridian state

Cheats? Do you mean those that were elected by the people? How are they cheating? You really are bonkers.

subsequently manoeuvred and essentially introduced a 'pay to vote' system to deny that electorate their voice.

Whatever they introduce it was done fairly and they were voted in by the population. Worse, half of those voting for or against this were democrats.

Pay to vote? Show me how that works?

All to get racist Trump into office.

There you go again. DEMOCRACY is about the people getting what they want. And many of those people ARE racist. Thats up to them. You as a lefty think you can tell the population what to think! Well I have news for you. If the population want a racist president then thats allowed in a democracy. Its not up to you or people like you to tell others what they are ALLOWED to think. I dont like muslims. Or in fact any religion. And I am allowed to vote - like the majority of the UK did to stop them destroying our culture and coming in illegally. Others dont like scots. Or people with red hair. Same thing? Or gays. Its not your place to tell others what to say, think, vote, or do. But the left think it is.

The loathsome anti democratic politics of the Republicans behind these moves lays bare the utter contempt that those of you on the far right hold for democracy.

I disagree totally. Its the left that try to control what people are allowed to think, say, or do. And have been doing this in many different ways for 50 years.

You have already demonstrated your personal contempt for the voting process with your insulting characterisation of democracy as "mob rule" ( presumably to be resisted and subverted at every turn?). It is worth recalling that democracy, even of the limited form that exists in the US and elsewhere, was won with the political struggle of millions of ordinary people who wanted a voice, and often gave their blood and their lives to achieve it.

Its not MY characterisation. Its the generally accepted description. I neither agree or disagree.

Trump and the Republicans scoff at that noble history - and the orange cretin

Many like trump. You are a lefty. So he makes you all angry and triggered! So you call him and his party names! You do realise that he does this to the lefties like you on purpose dont you?

got into office after losing a rigged election. He has no democratic legitimacy, and he was willingly assisted by bought and paid for Republican Party no marks. That you applaud says it all really.

Seems to me that he got in (just) using the US system which was never pretending to be a democracy perfectly legitimately. And you are all triggered and bitter about your unhinged lefty socialist morons getting beat. And you are ALL still bitter and twisted about it.

[redder]

evidently we are not going to agree. But i like the tone of your post John

[funkykeyboard]

The irish boom came from finally realising that socialism was a joke and they embraced capitalism. So Rubbish.

However, being thick, they stayed in the EU. And the EU think that allowing them to have lower taxes, and so encourage all the rich companies and their investments to move to ireland (low corporate taxation is what made them rich) is unfair to other EU countries. So they are now going to dictate that all EU countries have the same corporate tax levels. To make a "level playing field"... I.E far more taxes across the EU in order to bankrupt the EU sorry I mean suck all the money they can from the golden goose to prop up the poor, lazy, ineficient countries. Socialism 101. And also ireland whe were PREVIOUSLY a net recipient of the EU money. But after brexit, are now expected to pay in 5x more than they get back! Oh how I laughed. They tried to screw us over brexit. Now they are likely to be leaving too!

If you vote people into power that stand on the promise to stop crony captalism then that stops.

Latest example, northop gruman, boeing etc were recently alloted a massive sum to inefficiently launch a few miliatary satelites. At massive cost per launch on expendable rockets by the likes of the ULA. While spacex a private company, that have developed reusable rockets 10x faster than nasa could, can launch them at 1/5th the cost, and applied competitively for the contract were given just a small amount of those contracts. So that is a massive waste of public money. And the bulk of the contracts and $$$ went to the super slow and inefficient companies. And to nasa. Thats cronyism. Start locking up crony capitalists because its NOT capitalism where theres no fair competition. They will rapidly stop doing it. They dont want to be locked up. Allow it to contunue unquestioned and it will. Everywhere. We have full government department devoted to making sure these things are stopped. They are asking the public to point out any unfair trade practices. And likewise we have full agencies devoted to breaking up big companies such as google or amazon because they are basically too powerful and it removes the competition from the free market. You all allow this. You must vote for people across yopur country that will stop it.

Thats what democracy is for. If nobody stands for this, then obviously they dont think its a vote winner. Not enough people care.

as usual you failed to look at the big picture. You're half right, half wrong about Ireland. You are totally correct about crony capitalism, but you're never gonna get anyone elected to stop It.I want to emphasise a agree with you about crony capitalism. I've thought for a decade the structures of ageing capitalism are moving towards feudal patronage rather than capitalist meritocracy.

but totally wrong about democracy in the countries considered capitalist i.e. America.it literally doesn't matter who you elect. If you elected the most extreme anti-crony capitalism, It doesn't matter. Multinationals and international money have negated the power of the nationstate. NO nationstate can control a global economy. And WHAT HAPPENED TO IRELAND IS, is that all the countries were played off one against the other to achieve the maximum non-payment of tax.

In ageing capitalism there is a problem. If those who control the majority of the worlds wealth and means of production are not prepared to pay tax, how do you finance a modern literate highly educated healthy workforce to produce wealth?

[funkykeyboard]

workers produce wealth. capitalist/entrepreneurs MANAGE resource allocation most effectively so workers produce wealth most profitably or are outcompeted by other capitalists.

[Burgerman]

as usual you failed to look at the big picture. You're half right, half wrong about Ireland. You are totally correct about crony capitalism, but you're never gonna get anyone elected to stop It.I want to emphasise a agree with you about crony capitalism. I've thought for a decade the structures of ageing capitalism are moving towards feudal patronage rather than capitalist meritocracy.

No I didnt. And I am fully right! As for "never gonna get anyone elected to stop it" that depends on who stands, what thier policies are, and if the voter chooses that. So thats also incorrect.

but totally wrong about democracy in the countries considered capitalist i.e. America.it literally doesn't matter who you elect. If you elected the most extreme anti-crony capitalism, It doesn't matter. Multinationals and international money have negated the power of the nationstate. NO nationstate can control a global economy. And WHAT HAPPENED TO IRELAND IS, is that all the countries were played off one against the other to achieve the maximum non-payment of tax.

America ISNT A DEMOCRACY. And it absolutely matters who you elect. And multinationals have no power over anything unless you the voter allows that. Tell me how a multinational has control? The world is just a big free market. Or it would be if governments didnt interfere in it.

In ageing capitalism there is a problem.

Wrong. You sound like that moron marx with his bullshit.

If those who control the majority of the worlds wealth and means of production are not prepared to pay tax,
how do you finance a modern literate highly educated healthy workforce to produce wealth?

To begin with there is no wealth until an entrapenure like say musk as an extreme example, or the guy with 5 employees that makes say double glazed windows. Or solar inverters. Or your local plumbing company actually CREATES it. He does that because he wants to make money for himself. So he designs, organises, invests, risks his house, etc and build up his company. Just like musk. Those "who control" the production means are living in a capitalist competitive market. They are forced to offer the best products at the lowest cost to survive. Or Joe rocket company, or Joes plumbers will be along to undercut you in a minute. And obviously YOU could start your own plubing company and be one of those with the means to control "the means of production" too. So if you dont like the company boss, having the power to do what he does, then you can do it instead. Except that you cant because the competitiveness of the capitalist system makes that HARD.

workers produce wealth.

Rubbish!
Workers swap their labour or skills for a wage that they agreed with the employer. They simply do a job for a price. They win a wage. The employer makes wealth for HIMSELF or rather his company does. Note that its HIS company. They would have no job without the "rich boss" that you are all so jelous of. And without him, and his company you dont have a house or food. He needs empoyees, as a neccasary evil. Unless you decide that you want to start your own business and produce your own wealth. That neccassary evil results in those without the wherewithal to run or invent or start a business results in a balance. Where the employees do well too. Market forces apply.

capitalist/entrepreneurs MANAGE resource allocation most effectively so workers produce wealth most profitably or are outcompeted by other capitalists.

They manage resourses to produce wealth for THEMSELVES or their company. Or if they have shareholders, for them too. YOU have money in a bank? Thats you then.
The job of an employer has nothing to do with producing wealth for a worker. He is a resource like tools, computers, wood, etc. And is paid to do his skill or labour the free market price. And that price of that depends on supply and demand. If he can replace the worker with a machine more economicaly, great. The fact that the worker gets some wealth for himself from this in incidental to a business. The business on a basic level exists to make money for the boss. Its his business. None of this has anything to do with democracy. Of which the US isnt really anyway. You all decided that it needed some anti mob rule, and some representation for more out there ideas etc. So you have the system you have.

[Burgerman]

I might add that musk pays himself 1 dollar per month from tesla car gigafactory's on 3 continents, employing many many tens of 1000s of people, the boring company, solar city, the battery gigafactories on 3 continents, and spacex etc. He doesent even take a wage unless you count 1 dollar.

What it does do is advance technology, makes space launches and oh I forgot starlink, 40k satelites being put into orbit for cheaper better worldwide internet access, for all. As well as manufacturing the sattelites and roockets and employing armies of people to do so. As well as making the entire auto market wake up and try to compete with electric cars. He provides jobs, competition and better cheaper products, for millions across the planet. Everything he does also pays tax. Even all the employees that would otherwise be unemployed pays tax. He pays tax and supports thousands of smaller companies that supply services, computers, parts, metals, etc. Indirectly theres probably half a million support industry companies too. All win.

He makes his personal money (millions) by investing in his OWN companies. He puts his house on the line. And his money where his mouth is. Risks everything. In both starting all those companies, and in investing in his own companies shares. Remember that 50% of shares drop. And so the taxation on share profits is low. Because if it wasnt people wouldnt invest. 50/50 PLUS TAX is a mugs game. And people like you could do the same. But you choose to expect someone else to hand you a job. Hand you loads of holiday pay. Minimum wage. Job stability. ETC. But dont like that the rich have more than you.

What did YOU do?
Personally my mum/dad were self employed, and so are 2 of my brothers. And their kids are as well. I ran a few small businesses as well up to being crashed out! I dont think like the typical worker that expects the world owes me a job or income. I see labour as a resource. It may be needed. If you have the right skills to offer. Or not. So want more money? EARN IT!

I might also add that in all the predominantly capitalist "rich" western countries EVERY possible living standard metric has improved over the years. Yet theres always those that keep repeating that capitalism has or is failing. Thats plainly bollox!

[funkykeyboard]

If those who control the majority of the worlds wealth and means of production are not prepared to pay tax,
how do you finance a modern literate highly educated healthy workforce to produce wealth?

To begin with there is no wealth until an entrapenure like say musk as an extreme example, or the guy with 5 employees that makes say double glazed windows. Or solar inverters. Or your local plumbing company actually CREATES it. He does that because he wants to make money for himself. So he designs, organises, invests, risks his house, etc and build up his company. Just like musk. Those "who control" the production means are living in a capitalist competitive market. They are forced to offer the best products at the lowest cost to survive. Or Joe rocket company, or Joes plumbers will be along to undercut you in a minute. And obviously YOU could start your own plubing company and be one of those with the means to control "the means of production" too. So if you dont like the company boss, having the power to do what he does, then you can do it instead. Except that you cant because the competitiveness of the capitalist system makes that HARD.

big picture. You need to look at the bigger picture. AND before capitalism?

"To begin with there is no wealth until an entrepreneur blah blah". There is no wealth

So how come there was wealth in hunter gatherer societies (minimal), the 1st settler societies with the 1st class structures, slave societies, feudalism and ANY other pre-existing to capitalism, society?

look at the big picture, Wealth proceeded capitalism, and throughout the history of the human race wealth HAS NEVER been produced without somebody doing the work, be they architect our shit shifter.

In the entire history of the human society, it is labourers, workers, peasants, stonemasons, whatever you want to call them who put one brick on top of the other brick to build the castle. The king didn't do it. He may have been a good king, who wisely invested in his kingdom, building viaducts, roads, and many things that made that society better, he had a very important role, but he wasn't the sole producer wealth, and neither is the entrepreneur. It's a myth. They may be MAYBE essential to the symbiotic relationship between "managers" (King or entrepreneur) and wealth producers, workers, but there is an undeniable symbiotic relationship between wealth producer and manager in every farmers society.

Now, you won't believe this, but Karl Marx saw the kings and queens and emperors of history as ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the evolution of society/'s. He saw capitalism and the entrepreneurs, as the greatest society there has ever been, and ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to producing the great satisfaction of human needs wants and desires. But he also recognised the historical FACT above.what Karl Marx is doing that you are not, is looking at the big picture and asking the question, why did the society evolve?





scientific Research has shown that you never change anybody's mind with an argument.

[funkykeyboard]

* form of society, not farmer society LOL

[Burgerman]

So how come there was wealth in hunter gatherer societies (minimal), the 1st settler societies with the 1st class structures, slave societies, feudalism and ANY other pre-existing to capitalism, society?

Compared to todays capitalist rich western societies they were desperately poor. They died early and suffered many years of hard lives with almost nothing to show for it.

look at the big picture, Wealth proceeded capitalism, and throughout the history of the human race wealth HAS NEVER been produced without somebody doing the work, be they architect our shit shifter.

Correct. In the pre capitalist system days theres was some tiny amount of "wealth". But the vast majority struggled to house or eat or clothe themselves. There was less thn 1% of the wealth we have now in the rich capitalist west. We have wardrobes full of clothes. Cupboards full of food, a roof, and heat no matter how poor. Unless you compare it to places like venuzuala, who are STILL better off than in the pre capitalist history. Just. But the longer they embrace that moron chavez and now maduro and socIalism the more will die and suffer. This is the danger of socialism. They get poorer and poorer and so vote socialist because they pretend they can give the poor more of the "share"! So the idiots that are desperately poor vote for more of it. France is headed the same way. Getting poorer and poorer. Stupid is what stupid does.

Now, you won't believe this, but Karl Marx saw the kings and queens and emperors of history as ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the evolution of society/'s. He saw capitalism and the entrepreneurs, as the greatest society there has ever been, and ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to producing the great satisfaction of human needs wants and desires. But he also recognised the historical FACT above.what Karl Marx is doing that you are not, is looking at the big picture and asking the question, why did the society evolve?

Seriously, who the f**k cares what carl marx thought? He was a complete moron.

Why did society evolve? For the same reason a giraff evolved a long neck.
It moved towards capitalism, because all the alternatives died out. Because capitalism works and made societies that had it richer. Including the poor. The socialist alternative (and every other system) failed dismally - it was simply out competed. The alternatives starved people of freedom and everything else. Like food. Just like the giraffs that were born with shorter necks. They couldnt reach the food on the taller trees. So the siblings with the longer necks passed on their genes. And the shorter necked sibings (with the shorter neck gene) vanished from the gene pool. And the succsessful ones were all thats left. Rinse and repeat for a few hundred generations and we get todays giraffs. Thats the way the world is headed. Almost every socialist system has failed spectacularly and its died a death. And every capitalist system has done the opposite.

scientific Research has shown that you never change anybody's mind with an argument.

A logical and reasoned argument certainly changes my mind. But socialists wouldnt recognise logic or a reasoned argument if you hit them around the ead with one. So true, it wont change a socialist mind. They dont care about logic. Or they couldnt be socialist to begin with. They only care about their idea, and the jealousy that drives it.

[Lord Chatterley]

All that said, if I had to choose between the 2 I choose America to live in. But I would rather live in Finland than America. More left-wing, and the people in Finland are officially happier than the people in America.

I still haven't read George Reisman properly, but I do think though it may be possible to have a better capitalist system, there needs to be some people's control of the broad objectives of the system. There also needs to be away to clean up the corruption.. Multinationals are now taking the piss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5vsnX1UD1wall%20you

The Fins in America are happier than the Fins in Finland.

You are confusing two entirely different concepts - purpose and method. They are not the same.

The stated purpose of the USA is to create and maintain a nation that upholds individual rights - i.e. the right to life, liberty, property and the individual's pursuit of his own happiness. They got this idea from England's greatest philosopher John Locke.
The method of ensuring this is set out in the US Constitution and part of that method calls for the election of the people's representatives.

The stated purpose of Red China is to create and maintain a nation that flat-out rejects all notion of individual rights in favour of collectivised rights - equality, social justice and progress. In this type of society the individual's life counts for nothing - “To keep you is no benefit; to destroy you is no loss” They got these ideas from France and Germany's greatest philosophers.
The method of achieving these "noble" aims includes totalitarianism concealed beneath a fig-leaf of democratic procedures.

Any parallels drawn between either system are entirely superficial.

LC