What Capitalism’s Critics Get Wrong - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14840141
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, I see. You do not have a personal relationship with Her.

I am not Roman Catholic, my personal relationship is with the Lord "Jesus the Christ" and His father in Heaven.
I have no knowledge of your so-called she-god. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah
#14840143
Hindsite wrote:I am not Roman Catholic, my personal relationship is with the Lord "Jesus the Christ" and His father in Heaven.
I have no knowledge of your so-called she-god. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah


I am sorry that you have no direct knowledge of god.

I understand she does not give her Grace to all.

Perhaps capitalists venerate the material world too much, when they should simply try to understand it as the Marxists do.
#14840150
Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaps capitalists venerate the material world too much, when they should simply try to understand it as the Marxists do.


It really is a form of idolatry, especially for Christians. Instead of understanding capitalism as a deeply flawed and corrupt system developed of a fallen world, capitalism is glorified as a holy order that produces perfectly just outcomes. Critics and dissenters are regarded as vile apostates from the one true faith, indolent covetous takers filled with hatred and envy of the righteous makers.
#14840153
Pants-of-dog wrote:During the recent global financial crisis, it was unregulated banking trade that made economies fall apart, and government bailouts that kept it from happening.

In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. This led to many subprime mortgages, the ARM mortgage, over-zealous hedge fund managers, and Bernie Madoff pulling off the biggest financial fraud in history, right under the noses of the regulators. Home loans were packaged together by Wall Street firms and sold to institutional investors. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was asleep at the wheel.

The Chinese government supplied us with an unprecedented amount of cheap credit by keeping their currency value low. Bigger banks began buying up smaller banks and taking on their loans and became too big to fail, according to the government, which had to bail them out with our tax money and borrowed money from China.

They did not follow the example of Capitalism given by Jesus, the God of Capitalism. Praise the Lord.
#14840161
Hindsite wrote:In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. This led to many subprime mortgages, the ARM mortgage, over-zealous hedge fund managers, and Bernie Madoff pulling off the biggest financial fraud in history, right under the noses of the regulators. Home loans were packaged together by Wall Street firms and sold to institutional investors. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was asleep at the wheel.


No.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresd ... 50526.html

    Overview
    An important question arising out of the financial crisis is whether the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) played a significant role in the subprime mortgage boom and bust by pushing banks to make loans to risky borrowers.1 The CRA directs federal banking regulators to encourage banks to "help meet the credit needs" of their communities, particularly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Thus, a number of observers have argued that the CRA may have compelled banks to take excessive risk in order to expand their lending to lower-income communities and comply with the act.
    In this note, we assess the strength of this argument by discussing how the CRA is enforced and by examining the available empirical evidence on the link between the CRA and risky lending. Overall, there appears to be little reason to believe that the CRA was an important factor in the subprime boom and subsequent crash. Not only is the law explicitly written and enforced to avoid pushing banks too far, but empirical research, by and large, also finds little connection between the CRA-related activities of banks and the expansion of risky or subprime mortgage lending.

The Chinese government supplied us with an unprecedented amount of cheap credit by keeping their currency value low. Bigger banks began buying up smaller banks and taking on their loans and became too big to fail, according to the government, which had to bail them out with our tax money and borrowed money from China.


I doubt it. Your last claim turned out to be wrong, so I will assume this one is too.

They did not follow the example of Capitalism given by Jesus, the God of Capitalism. Praise the Lord.


Poe.
#14840179
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

I doubt it. Your last claim turned out to be wrong, so I will assume this one is too.

Poe.

You don't seem to want to believe anything I say, so there is no point in me saying anything to you. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah.
#14840246
We should get rid of all the accessibility laws. I mean the last fucking thing we need is a bunch of cripples in churches.
#14840275
B0ycey wrote:I understand you are anti bourgeois. But they do have a function that make todays society tick and that is a fact. Not brainwashing. If you want to eliminate the bourgeoisie you should boycott all non essential goods. Eliminate yourself from capitalism all together (if you can). If everyone agree with you, money will lose all value. But the problem is human nature. Could you really give up everything?

People in wealthy countries are well off today - even the so called poor. Sure you have your socialists who want a fairer wealth sharing system. Why not. If in wasn't a haven for corruption perhaps it would be the best political system. But deep down I doubt none of them would be prepared to return to a medieval system of fighting to take what you need or hunt and gathering or living off the land - and really this is what would happen if capitalism ended tomorrow. Everytime there was a major advancement in human achievements, each time it was linked to a society of some form. So can I ask. Can you truely live in anarchy? If so, try it. Live in a tent.


I think we are at cross purposes. I am not a mediaeval holy hermit, individuals cannot change society, and obviously capitalism works for long periods before nose-diving into huge slumps, world wars or the destruction of humanity. I do not want fairer sharing of wealth - I want to see the whole thieving capitalist class replaced by democratic decision-making by a revived humanity. It greatly depends on what you mean by anarchy, your last question. Without thieves to protect, who needs a State? The unions can run anything that needs running, obviously.
#14840284
Ned Lud wrote:The unions can run anything that needs running, obviously.

Then the unions bosses become the dictators, just like what happens to all socialist and communist societies eventually.
#14840286
Hindsite wrote:Then the unions bosses become the dictators, just like what happens to all socialist and communist societies eventually.
How, nutter? They call up their private armies from the moon? Somebody's been washing someone's brain, I see. How the shit do you have a dictator without a state, you noodle?
#14840291
Ned Lud wrote:How, nutter? They call up their private armies from the moon? Somebody's been washing someone's brain, I see. How the shit do you have a dictator without a state, you noodle?


Try not to be so abusive, there are a couple of rule 2 violations here.
#14840299
Ned Lud wrote:How, nutter? They call up their private armies from the moon? Somebody's been washing someone's brain, I see. How the shit do you have a dictator without a state, you noodle?


You are being abusive while ignoring the history of unions. Yes, they had their own armies. Yes, they were dictatorial and corrupt. In the US, their downfall was mainly due to the abuses of their leaders.
#14840342
Hindsite wrote:You don't seem to want to believe anything I say, so there is no point in me saying anything to you. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah.


As long as we agree that your claim about the CRA was wrong.

Hindsite wrote:Then the unions bosses become the dictators, just like what happens to all socialist and communist societies eventually.


No. I can think of at least one example that disproves this.

---------------

One Degree wrote:You are being abusive while ignoring the history of unions. Yes, they had their own armies. Yes, they were dictatorial and corrupt. In the US, their downfall was mainly due to the abuses of their leaders.


Please provide evidence for this claim.
#14840343
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Please provide evidence for this claim.


No. Read history for yourself. It is readily available.
#14840355
Pants-of-dog wrote:Lol. Someone is getting impatient with me.

As long as we agree that union armies only exist in your imagination.


:lol: As long as we agree you are just pretending to be unaware of organized crime connections to unions and unions using their members as an army.
#14840360
One Degree wrote::lol: As long as we agree you are just pretending to be unaware of organized crime connections to unions and unions using their members as an army.


Oh, so when unions are co-opted by criminals who wish to make money, this is somehow a criticism of communism and not a criticism of organised crime?

How widespread is (or was) this co-opting, and how is it the fault of communism?

By the way, you have changed your argument. But I am willing to ignore this shifting of the goalposts and address this new claim.
#14840362
Once again PoD shows off his ignorance.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Trade unions most certainly have maintained armies and hopefully will do so again some day soon.
#14840369
In fairness to POD, and this being American Labour Day, which while commemorated by Western States who were the victims of militia violence for some time:

Image

Was made a Federal holiday after the Pullman Massacre when a militia came in to kill all the workers:

Image

At the mention of starting a union, let alone arming it, the American Legion, Pinkertons, and the military were deployed in that order. Sometimes, if the American Legion or Pinkertons were successful, it would be a simple lynching of everyone involved:

Image

If that didn't work, then (as noted above with a few of many examples) it was shoot-to-kill men, women, children, and everyone else.

---

But ultimately Decky is correct that when given the choice and opportunity, after being subjected to these kinds of rule of blood, everyone will learn that the gun is the one thing that can set you free.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]