Discuss the following quote

[KingofBeer 0]

my point is that the model of; graduate + work hard = rise to the top does not really work like it used to.

 

that's why i'm on the internets and posting on fftoday during work hours. my laziness is going to pay off soon

[jerryskids 5,414]

I still think the greater act is the guy who gave half of what he owned. That is the greater act of giving and that was the question. People with very little money need all of it for the basics in life. So for them to give away any of it means cutting out your basic needs. That is most definitely a greater act than a millionaire giving 100,000 to charity - the millionaire isn't dealing with the basics in life, unless of course you count the need to own a maserati a basic need.

 

And you haven't answered my question about your rich guy's company. Did setting it up negatively affect smaller companies or small communities? Large corporations are causing such havoc all the time but people only focus on the jobs these companies create, not the ones they take away. Big Box Stores like Walmart have destroyed smaller commerces that were proudly run by people sometimes for decades. You have to consider ALL of this when you determine if something is good for society.

Whether or not small stores went out of business is irrelevant.

 

I think you should read the entire speech from Howard Roark's trial:

 

Link

 

Does altruism sound so good now?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Did setting up his company result in hundreds of thousands of people working in smaller companies with better benefits losing their jobs?

 

So you think that someone giving half of what they own isn't a greater act than someone giving 0.0000000000000000000001% of what they own? We are talking about the act now, not the result. Please tell me you understand the difference.

 

Bingo.

 

That's the liberal mindset right there: "Don't bother me with the results of a program or if it achieves what it was sold as, I'm just concerned with how it makes someone feel, or how much it punishes achievers".

 

The "difference"? Libs want to use other people's money to say they care.....................Conservatives want to grow a business/economy so everyone who puts forth the effort improves his lot in life. Results vs what makes someone "feel good"...........or better yet, reality vs fantasyland.

[Blitzen 0]

Whether or not small stores went out of business is irrelevant.

 

No it's not, not if that means that the overall total number of jobs went down or that the quality of those jobs went down. If he creates 100,000 but in the process destroys 200,000 jobs in smaller communities/companies, are you saying that that's good?

[jerryskids 5,414]

No it's not, not if that means that the overall total number of jobs went down or that the quality of those jobs went down. If he creates 100,000 but in the process destroys 200,000 jobs in smaller communities/companies, are you saying that that's good?

Yes. The airplane put a lot of train companies out of business. Do you wish that the airplane had never been invented?

[Blitzen 0]

Bingo.

 

That's the liberal mindset right there: "Don't bother me with the results of a program or if it achieves what it was sold as, I'm just concerned with how it makes someone feel, or how much it punishes achievers".

 

The "difference"? Libs want to use other people's money to say they care.....................Conservatives want to grow a business/economy so everyone who puts forth the effort improves his lot in life. Results vs what makes someone "feel good"...........or better yet, reality vs fantasyland.

 

The question was why people don't recognize straight wealth creation as much as wealth sharing and I gave an answer based on what many sane people see as a greater act. If you don't think someone giving away some of their basic needs is a greater act than someone giving away their Maserati, then I can't really help you. Of course, the overall result from the larger gift will be larger but the perceived act will be greater for someone giving away their basic needs. I'm not saying that all wealth creation is bad but you only seem able to comprehend black vs white so if that pleases you, then yes imagine that what I'm saying is that all capitalists should be destroyed.

[Blitzen 0]

Yes. The airplane put a lot of train companies out of business. Do you wish that the airplane had never been invented?

 

You have severe problems comprehending basic text. I said you have to look at several factors before saying that something is better for society. I think the airplane certainly has its place but removing the train so much from the equation in favor of cars wasn't a good idea, especially now that the price of gas is going up.

 

Is opening a huge Chapters that shuts down a large number of small family-run libraries better for society? Please note that I am not saying better for buyers, I said better for society, which is your point. Unless of course the only thing that matters to you is what is best for consumers.

[jerryskids 5,414]

You have severe problems comprehending basic text. I said you have to look at several factors before saying that something is better for society. I think the airplane certainly has its place but removing the train so much from the equation in favor of cars wasn't a good idea, especially now that the price of gas is going up.

 

Is opening a huge Chapters that shuts down a large number of small family-run libraries better for society? Please note that I am not saying better for buyers, I said better for society, which is your point. Unless of course the only thing that matters to you is what is best for consumers.

Fundamentally, yes it is better for society. You vote with your dollars in a capitalist society. If the idea of a big bad Walmart bothers you, don't shop there. If enough people have your opinion, then they will adapt or die. I don't hear anyone complaining about their $300 Vizios, though.

 

I guess you'll argue I'm mixing society and consumers, but I'm not sure how to differentiate it. Is it difficult on the small shop owners? Of course. Do I feel sorry for them? Yes. But somebody came along with a better mousetrap. To use your library example, how can they adapt? Focus on a genre? Have events at their place built around that genre? Become known as the pre-eminent place to get such genre? And now voila! We have a cheap store for people who want to just shop in general, and a focused place which caters to a specific clientele.

 

Or they can just cry in their milk, as you are suggesting.

 

This is how things work in a capitalist society.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The question was why people don't recognize straight wealth creation as much as wealth sharing and I gave an answer based on what many sane people see as a greater act. If you don't think someone giving away some of their basic needs is a greater act than someone giving away their Maserati, then I can't really help you. Of course, the overall result from the larger gift will be larger but the perceived act will be greater for someone giving away their basic needs. I'm not saying that all wealth creation is bad but you only seem able to comprehend black vs white so if that pleases you, then yes imagine that what I'm saying is that all capitalists should be destroyed.

 

Never said you claimed that. If all capitalists were destroyed you would have nobody to hate, envy, and wish to bleed dry financially so you could have your "feel good" moments.

[jerryskids 5,414]

I thought of a great example for blitzen.

 

A huge Ikea superstore went up by my house. Some furniture stores closed. But then a funny thing happened. Right next to Ikea a small strip mall was built. It became full of... furniture stores. Then another one next door, same thing. It appears that somebody had the idea of actually leveraging the pull of the Ikea store.

 

Yesterday I went shopping for an office chair for my Christmas gift. The second mall above had an office furniture store, so the wife and I went in. Ends up this guy is passionate about ergonomic office chairs and designs many of his own. I chose one that height adjustment and was tall enough for my long frame, good head support, thoracic support (never even knew about this!), adjustable depth, adjustable tension, adjustable lumbar support... best chair I ever sat in. Afterward he showed me his office in the store; he uses the same chair. I could have paid less for a piece of crap Ikea chair, but I sit here quite a bit, and my comfort is worth it.

 

He explained how yet a third mall is planned for the complex. The lease agreement mandates that you must sell home/furnishing products only. He has a store in Scottsdale but bought this one because he had the chance to own the building. They were only open a month and did as much business as the Scottsdale store. There is also a hotel planned. We are on the south end of Phoenix and the plan is to become a shopping mecca for people from Tucson to come up and spend the weekend furnishing their house. Interesting concept, eh?

 

Ikea wins. Westcor, the large developer of these malls, wins. The little passionate ergonomic chair guy wins. I win. Everybody wins.

 

That is why this country is so great.

[parrot 789]

I thought of a great example for blitzen.

 

A huge Ikea superstore went up by my house. Some furniture stores closed. But then a funny thing happened. Right next to Ikea a small strip mall was built. It became full of... furniture stores. Then another one next door, same thing. It appears that somebody had the idea of actually leveraging the pull of the Ikea store.

 

Yesterday I went shopping for an office chair for my Christmas gift. The second mall above had an office furniture store, so the wife and I went in. Ends up this guy is passionate about ergonomic office chairs and designs many of his own. I chose one that height adjustment and was tall enough for my long frame, good head support, thoracic support (never even knew about this!), adjustable depth, adjustable tension, adjustable lumbar support... best chair I ever sat in. Afterward he showed me his office in the store; he uses the same chair. I could have paid less for a piece of crap Ikea chair, but I sit here quite a bit, and my comfort is worth it.

 

He explained how yet a third mall is planned for the complex. The lease agreement mandates that you must sell home/furnishing products only. He has a store in Scottsdale but bought this one because he had the chance to own the building. They were only open a month and did as much business as the Scottsdale store. There is also a hotel planned. We are on the south end of Phoenix and the plan is to become a shopping mecca for people from Tucson to come up and spend the weekend furnishing their house. Interesting concept, eh?

 

Ikea wins. Westcor, the large developer of these malls, wins. The little passionate ergonomic chair guy wins. I win. Everybody wins.

 

That is why this country is so great.

 

Do the established stores in Tucson win when their customer base starts making their pilgrimage to this Mecca?

[jerryskids 5,414]

Do the established stores in Tucson win when their customer base starts making their pilgrimage to this Mecca?

Oh sweet mother of all that is holy... do you guys even read what you type? Tell you what, we'll have no more store openings effective today. Also I'll go kick the ergonomic chair guy in the nuts and tell him he is not allowed to provide office comfort anymore. I'll walk of course, because whoever invented the wheel probably put some caveman carrying companies out of business.

[parrot 789]

Oh sweet mother of all that is holy... do you guys even read what you type? Tell you what, we'll have no more store openings effective today. Also I'll go kick the ergonomic chair guy in the nuts and tell him he is not allowed to provide office comfort anymore. I'll walk of course, because whoever invented the wheel probably put some caveman carrying companies out of business.

 

Great post.

 

Start a "discuss" thread and resort to strawmen every time someone questions anything you say, like "everyone wins".

[jerryskids 5,414]

Great post.

 

Start a "discuss" thread and resort to strawmen every time someone questions anything you say, like "everyone wins".

Fine. It will likely adversely affect the established Tucson furniture market. What is your point?

[parrot 789]

Fine. It will likely adversely affect the established Tucson furniture market. What is your point?

 

My point is that not everyone wins.

[jerryskids 5,414]

My point is that not everyone wins.

But you don't know that. Because the Tucson furniture stores may undergo transformations of their own.

 

That being said, likely some stores will go out of business. So should the Phoenix project be stopped because of it?

 

BTW, has anyone read the full Roark quote I linked to blitzen? Comments?

[parrot 789]

But you don't know that. Because the Tucson furniture stores may undergo transformations of their own.

 

No I don't know that, but I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. I think demand for something like furniture is probably fairly constant and a new "Mecca" is most likely taking a lot of those sales away from someone else.

 

 

That being said, likely some stores will go out of business. So should the Phoenix project be stopped because of it?

 

No, I don't think it should be stopped. In aggregate fair competition is a good thing, but there are costs associated with it, I was just trying to get you to acknowledge that.

[phillybear 365]

I farted. :sniff: :sniff: It stinks in here.

[Blitzen 0]

Never said you claimed that. If all capitalists were destroyed you would have nobody to hate, envy, and wish to bleed dry financially so you could have your "feel good" moments.

 

Thanks for proving my point about you not being able to see anything that isn't black or white.

[peenie 1,703]

that's why i'm on the internets and posting on fftoday during work hours. my laziness is going to pay off soon

i'm at home on vacation.

[Blitzen 0]

Whether or not small stores went out of business is irrelevant.

 

I think you should read the entire speech from Howard Roark's trial:

 

Link

 

Does altruism sound so good now?

 

I've read this but again, this is black vs white - pitches altruism as some sort of way to corrupt mankind from which no good can possibly come. This is totally focking insane. I've given time to several causes, sat on board of community organizations and I don't think they were corrupted in any way shape or form. Here's part of that speech: "Yet one cannot give that which has not been created." How about the time I give to these organizations? Who created that? Me? But how is that possible without capitalism? So maybe altruism isn't the seed of the downfall of society after all...

 

I never think in black vs white - I think that comes from working with the media so much, where a story "sells" better if it is black vs white. Having a scientist explain the grey part to people is boooooooooooring to them so let's only present the black vs white. Here's an example for you: as much as I think RP is a blowhard, I read the link he posted yesterday about climate change and will be waiting for counter comments to see if that group of dissenting scientists brings additional points to the table. I'm an environmentalist but I also think that modelling future events is very difficult. In the early 90s, I asked a climate change expert why water vapor wasn't seen as the major GH gas and he looked at me with a blind stare. I find it interesting that it is being brought up today. But the grey part doesn't really sell books well - you either have to think that climate change will destroy the earth or that it won't have any effect on it.

 

As someone suggested in your Tucson example, it is quite possible that some will lose but maybe the sum total will be positive, maybe not. My point is that I don't necessarily hate capitalism per se but your point about the creator of wealth always benefitting society is overdone. Some creators of wealth have absolutely raped society. Was Enron a positive in your books? How about companies like HP that leave behind focking huge ground pollution plumes for the government to clean up? Was that good? See capitalism isn't always something that needs to be lauded. But sometimes it is. Do you understand my way of thinking now?

[jerryskids 5,414]

I've read this but again, this is black vs white - pitches altruism as some sort of way to corrupt mankind from which no good can possibly come. This is totally focking insane. I've given time to several causes, sat on board of community organizations and I don't think they were corrupted in any way shape or form. Here's part of that speech: "Yet one cannot give that which has not been created." How about the time I give to these organizations? Who created that? Me? But how is that possible without capitalism? So maybe altruism isn't the seed of the downfall of society after all...

 

I never think in black vs white - I think that comes from working with the media so much, where a story "sells" better if it is black vs white. Having a scientist explain the grey part to people is boooooooooooring to them so let's only present the black vs white. Here's an example for you: as much as I think RP is a blowhard, I read the link he posted yesterday about climate change and will be waiting for counter comments to see if that group of dissenting scientists brings additional points to the table. I'm an environmentalist but I also think that modelling future events is very difficult. In the early 90s, I asked a climate change expert why water vapor wasn't seen as the major GH gas and he looked at me with a blind stare. I find it interesting that it is being brought up today. But the grey part doesn't really sell books well - you either have to think that climate change will destroy the earth or that it won't have any effect on it.

 

As someone suggested in your Tucson example, it is quite possible that some will lose but maybe the sum total will be positive, maybe not. My point is that I don't necessarily hate capitalism per se but your point about the creator of wealth always benefitting society is overdone. Some creators of wealth have absolutely raped society. Was Enron a positive in your books? How about companies like HP that leave behind focking huge ground pollution plumes for the government to clean up? Was that good? See capitalism isn't always something that needs to be lauded. But sometimes it is. Do you understand my way of thinking now?

 

I think you are missing her point. There is nothing wrong with individual voluntary acts that you describe. I donate quite a bit myself, and volunteer as well. Those are our creations, and our to do with what we will. She is talking about a society based on altruism and collectivism. To tie back to my first post, Rusty's "tax the bejeebus out of the rich" or whatever he said.

 

She also says "as long as a primary purpose is not to harm others (paraphrase)." One could argue that your Enron etc. examples fit into this. If I come off as saying there should be no laws against dangerous dumping or stealing money from shareholders, I apologize because that is not my intent. I think she also was differentiating from the harm we've argued above; e.g. another company goes out of business because of my company.

 

Also, a creator is not necessarily motivated by wealth. I think we covered that earlier.

[Blitzen 0]

I think you are missing her point. There is nothing wrong with individual voluntary acts that you describe. I donate quite a bit myself, and volunteer as well. Those are our creations, and our to do with what we will. She is talking about a society based on altruism and collectivism. To tie back to my first post, Rusty's "tax the bejeebus out of the rich" or whatever he said.

 

She also says "as long as a primary purpose is not to harm others (paraphrase)." One could argue that your Enron etc. examples fit into this. If I come off as saying there should be no laws against dangerous dumping or stealing money from shareholders, I apologize because that is not my intent. I think she also was differentiating from the harm we've argued above; e.g. another company goes out of business because of my company.

 

Also, a creator is not necessarily motivated by wealth. I think we covered that earlier.

 

Yep, but without a society with taxes who will be the watchdog for companies? You could make a point that any regulation limits creativity. Regulations that protect the environment are there as a way to protect citizens - that in itself is a form of wealth redistribution with an altruistic motive and it isn't a bad idea...far from it.

[jerryskids 5,414]

Yep, but without a society with taxes who will be the watchdog for companies? You could make a point that any regulation limits creativity. Regulations that protect the environment are there as a way to protect citizens - that in itself is a form of wealth redistribution with an altruistic motive and it isn't a bad idea...far from it.

I'm not against taxes. There are things which are best run by a government: police, firefighters, road maintenance/construction, watchdogs like you describe, etc. But I am against entitlement programs in general. And against "taxing the bejeebus out of the rich."

[Blitzen 0]

I'm not against taxes. There are things which are best run by a government: police, firefighters, road maintenance/construction, watchdogs like you describe, etc. But I am against entitlement programs in general. And against "taxing the bejeebus out of the rich."

 

Would you be for taxing the rich less than, or the same as, the poor in the hopes that they redistribute the wealth to their employees?

 

So you think that altruism is good sometimes and bad other times? Same as capitalism to me and I have nothing wrong with that. But government programs such as environmental cleanup cost a bejeebus lot of money. Doubtful the poor non-creators would be able to defray the cost and since it results for the most par, from large company operations, then it would stand to reason to tax the rich who run these companies a lot more. We can argue on how much is fair but that would be pointless. And if the companies feel they are being taxed too much, they are free to leave and go to China or Togo.

[Blitzen 0]

Got another question for ya: how much altruism do you think would be needed in order to completely discourage creators from creating? Some Scandinavian countries are major altruists from a government point of view and I haven't heard that their industries are collapsing. It's an adaptation to a different mindset.

 

If all countries adopted the same market regulations, human rights principles and environmental regs, companies couldn't complain and threaten to leave, they would just shut up and produce because I think the entrepreneurial mindset would not be stopped by it. It's just that CEOs wouldn't have the huge - obscene - bonuses. They would just have to make do with 100 to 200x what their employees make. I think it's possible to be very entrepreneurial without being totally greedy.

[parrot 789]

I think the main difference is the capitalistic mind tends to be optimistic about human behavior while the socialist tends to have a more negative viewpoint of human nature.

 

I think you have this exactly backward.

 

Socialism rests on the idea of people being willing to work for the "common good" and put out genuine effort even though they don't benefit any more than if they just sit around on their nuts and do nothing; an optimistic but naive viewpoint. Capitalism understands that most people are primarily motivated by self-interest and will work harder only if they personally stand to benefit from it, which I would say is more of a pessimistic or negative viewpoint, but it's also reality.

[jerryskids 5,414]

Would you be for taxing the rich less than, or the same as, the poor in the hopes that they redistribute the wealth to their employees?

 

So you think that altruism is good sometimes and bad other times? Same as capitalism to me and I have nothing wrong with that. But government programs such as environmental cleanup cost a bejeebus lot of money. Doubtful the poor non-creators would be able to defray the cost and since it results for the most par, from large company operations, then it would stand to reason to tax the rich who run these companies a lot more. We can argue on how much is fair but that would be pointless. And if the companies feel they are being taxed too much, they are free to leave and go to China or Togo.

Taxing the rich less? No. The same? Yes. Slightly more? Could be negotiated. Redistribute to their employees? No, why would they do that? They'll likely spend more in the economy though.

 

You are missing my point about altruism. I support altruism if it is a cause I choose to support. I do not in general support altruism in the form of entitlements which allow second-handers to redistribute my wealth. I also think that anything that can be run by a non-government agency will be more efficient and effective by a government agency.

 

Also, companies pay taxes. I do not understand the argument of further taxing the individuals who run those companies.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Thanks for proving my point about you not being able to see anything that isn't black or white.

 

WTF are you babbling about? Is this where I use one of your "Way to bring out the strawman argument", or some such BS?

 

I simply pointed out the painfully obvious differences between libs and conservatives. If these differences are over your head I got nothin to help ya.

[jerryskids 5,414]

I think you have this exactly backward.

 

Socialism rests on the idea of people being willing to work for the "common good" and put out genuine effort even though they don't benefit any more than if they just sit around on their nuts and do nothing; an optimistic but naive viewpoint. Capitalism understands that most people are primarily motivated by self-interest and will work harder only if they personally stand to benefit from it, which I would say is more of a pessimistic or negative viewpoint, but it's also reality.

Not to speak for Toro, but the counter would be that capitalists believe that people in general can succeed if they apply themselves, whereas socialists believe that people in general cannot and need help from others.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I think you have this exactly backward.

 

Socialism rests on the idea of people being willing to work for the "common good" and put out genuine effort even though they don't benefit any more than if they just sit around on their nuts and do nothing; an optimistic but naive viewpoint. Capitalism understands that most people are primarily motivated by self-interest and will work harder only if they personally stand to benefit from it, which I would say is more of a pessimistic or negative viewpoint, but it's also reality.

 

 

Problem is your "idea" has failed miserably in every country it has been implemented. However, capitalism seems to be working out pretty good.

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.......................that is, if the Politburo has issued you your pipe and tobacco, otherwise you can just imagine the pleasure of putting it in your pipe and smoking it.

[Blitzen 0]

Taxing the rich less? No. The same? Yes. Slightly more? Could be negotiated. Redistribute to their employees? No, why would they do that? They'll likely spend more in the economy though.

 

You are missing my point about altruism. I support altruism if it is a cause I choose to support. I do not in general support altruism in the form of entitlements which allow second-handers to redistribute my wealth. I also think that anything that can be run by a non-government agency will be more efficient and effective by a government agency.

 

Also, companies pay taxes. I do not understand the argument of further taxing the individuals who run those companies.

 

I have worked in the public, private and voluntary sectors and I can absolutely 100% assure you that mismanagement is NOT the exclusive purview of the public sector. I've seen just as much bad management in one as in the other. Basically, give people a lot of money and the greedy will go to town. Enron, Nortel (have a friend who worked there and who had AMAZING stories of what went on), there's another whitecollar crime case up here called Norbourg where investors have been screwed out of their savings. I could go on and on and we've just begun to come down hard on white collar crimes.

 

Read the book The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and give me your critique of it. Skip the first part if you like because it gets tedious but read the rest and then give me another appreciation of all the good that "unbridled" capitalism has brought about. If you don't feel like reading it, find me a critique from someone you trust. I have yet to find a critique that didn't either:

 

1) Simply attack the author instead of the facts

2) Totally misrepresented the facts presented in the book, demonstrating either that the critic hadn't read the book or was just twisting what it said to please a certain set of readers who wouldn't be reading it either.

 

I'm serious, that book was so shocking to me that I would welcome a critique that shot down a lot of what is said in there. Even if you don't buy her central hypothesis that ties the facts together, the facts on their own are already quite astounding. I've heard that she got a $200K advance from the publisher and spent most of it on lawyers who corroborated her sources. There's an economist she criticizes in the book who came out and said that although she somewhat simplified some points, capitalism has also been historically guilty of the same crime. I think it's worth the read.

[Blitzen 0]

WTF are you babbling about? Is this where I use one of your "Way to bring out the strawman argument", or some such BS?

 

I simply pointed out the painfully obvious differences between libs and conservatives. If these differences are over your head I got nothin to help ya.

 

You keep talking about me like I'm the worst hater of capitalism out there and I'm not. I think it can do some good and it can do some bad too. Grey - not black or white. That clear enough for ya Skippy?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You keep talking about me like I'm the worst hater of capitalism out there and I'm not. I think it can do some good and it can do some bad too. Grey - not black or white. That clear enough for ya Skippy?

 

Never said that either, but don't let facts get in your way.

 

Something tells me Blitzen is some college kid majoring in Phychology, or some other useless endeavor famous for having commie profs. Try thinking for yourself, college boy. Someday you won't be on the parent's dole and will be in the real world.

[Blitzen 0]

Never said that either, but don't let facts get in your way.

 

If all capitalists were destroyed you would have nobody to hate, envy, and wish to bleed dry financially so you could have your "feel good" moments.

 

Something tells me that RP should be in a psych ward.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Something tells me that RP should be in a psych ward.

 

Something tells me I hit the nail on the head.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I think you have this exactly backward.

 

Socialism rests on the idea of people being willing to work for the "common good" and put out genuine effort even though they don't benefit any more than if they just sit around on their nuts and do nothing; an optimistic but naive viewpoint. Capitalism understands that most people are primarily motivated by self-interest and will work harder only if they personally stand to benefit from it, which I would say is more of a pessimistic or negative viewpoint, but it's also reality.

 

Capitalism isnt an "ISM" at all, its the natural byproduct of a free society.....and it cant be a pessimistic view...its not an ideology....its the governing body of humanity. You've been suckling at the tit of "anyone who does for themselves is an egotist who cares about no one else" so long you havent even looked at how remarkably natural and organic capitalism actually is. This phucking planet is doomed.

[parrot 789]

Problem is your "idea" has failed miserably in every country it has been implemented. However, capitalism seems to be working out pretty good.

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.......................that is, if the Politburo has issued you your pipe and tobacco, otherwise you can just imagine the pleasure of putting it in your pipe and smoking it.

 

You know posts like this really make me wonder whether you are a pathetic troll like I normally assume, or just genuinely focking dense.

 

Maybe you'd like to comment on the part where I indicate the Capitalist view better represents REALITY, or maybe where I called the Socialist view "naive". Probably not though, since that would require you to;

 

A. actually demonstrate some reading comprehension, and

 

2. demonstrate some intellectual honesty, which we all know you're incapable of.

 

This goes equally for Bozo fan as well.

[parrot 789]

Not to speak for Toro, but the counter would be that capitalists believe that people in general can succeed if they apply themselves, whereas socialists believe that people in general cannot and need help from others.

 

I don't know if that's a completely fair represtentation of the Socialist view but I'll give you that this is a decent counter.

[SUXBNME 1,360]

Capitalists > Cannibals > Socialists