The coming end of capitalism

[ludin]

I am talking about the real world of the USA in 2016 in which Americans have the right to elect their US Senators . I have no idea what fantasy world you are talking about.

your ignorance of history doesn't make it go away. before 1913 people didn't appoint state senators the state did.
that is how it was designed to work. in 1913 it was changed.

people wouldn't be losing a right the system would go back to the way it was originally designed.
it isn't that hard to understand you obviously have little knowledge on US government.

 

[Master PO]

not entirely true. the senate still has to approve the budget. also the senate can filibuster any bill
where as no power like that is in the house.

also in the senate the leader doesn't have to bring any bill they don't want to for a vote.
the senate has a great deal of power.

although you are right senators have lost a bit of their state interest, but it has been a long time since
senators were appointed by the state. there also were massive issues with that as well.

there were a ton of political interferences and sometimes states couldn't even appoint a senator because of it.

the senate can only concur with the house, or propose an amendment to what the house has already created, it cannot create any revenue

by the senate being now in the hands of the people, this makes congress only serve the interest of the people, and for law making to only serve 1 single interest is tyranny.

the senate before the 17th was a non- collective body, after the 17th it is a collective body the senate was created to prevent the collective capacity of the people from making law.

correct.. there were problems with getting senators in office however that did not affect federal making.

federalist 63 -THE SENATE -- The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.

 

[haymarket]

your ignorance of history doesn't make it go away. before 1913 people didn't appoint state senators the state did.
that is how it was designed to work. in 1913 it was changed.

people wouldn't be losing a right the system would go back to the way it was originally designed.
it isn't that hard to understand you obviously have little knowledge on US government.

You call me ignorant and then show you are ten times worse. Can you explain just WHO it was that appointed those US Senators before 1913?

And keep your condescending personal insults to yourself where they are better served.
And then explain what your and others attempt to hijack this thread to a topic other than the one in the OP is not objectionable?

 

[Master PO]

You call me ignorant and then show you are ten times worse. Can you explain just WHO it was that appointed those US Senators before 1913?

And keep your condescending personal insults to yourself where they are better served.
And then explain what your and others attempt to hijack this thread to a topic other than the one in the OP is not objectionable?

hijack? if that is so you are part of the hi-jackers

 

[Mason66]

If we do get another economic crash, the question becomes how long will large numbers of people support a system that they believe (rightly or wrongly) does NOT work in their best interests and in fact works against them?

Who says capitalism doesn't wok for everybody? Are those people at the lower end of the scale not making any money?

If it wasn't for capitalism, they would be starving.

 

[haymarket]

hijack? if that is so you are part of the hi-jackers

refuting you and others doing the attempted hijacking is a public service.

 

[haymarket]

Who says capitalism doesn't wok for everybody? Are those people at the lower end of the scale not making any money?

If it wasn't for capitalism, they would be starving.

I don't get it. :shock:

 

[ocean515]

Lets get this straight: your great so called "natural fact" is that people want freedom? Is that correct?

As many have pointed out,we have NOT had capitalism for a very long time now. What we have is capitalism tempered with elements of socialism producing a mixed economy. And what the OP article points out is that a future economic crash would shift that balance even more in favor of the socialism elements over the vestiges of the capitalism elements.

Yes, you got it straight.

I disagree with your many. I reject the "mixed economy" meme. Capitalism has brought about efforts to improve itself. Public education is an example, yet it's among the favorite of socialists to use as an argument that the US is a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism.

Perhaps you should learn something about the history of public education before you and your many try to sell this "mixed economy" meme. Perhaps the belief is that by doing so it will be easier to pave the way for the socialist nirvana many dream about.

For example, at the turn of the century in 1900, only 1 in 10 people had a high school education. The industrial revolution brought about a need for a more educated work force, so education became an important aspect of capitalism in that period. It wasn't some socialist "for the better good of the people" effort, as socialists like to suggest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States

The growth of human capital[edit]

By 1900 educators argued that the post-literacy schooling of the masses at the secondary and higher levels, would improve citizenship, develop higher-order traits, and produce the managerial and professional leadership needed for rapid economic modernization. The commitment to expanded education past age 14 set the U.S. apart from Europe for much of the 20th century.[47]

From 1910 to 1940, high schools grew in number and size, reaching out to a broader clientele. In 1910, for example, 9% of Americans had a high school diploma; in 1935, the rate was 40%.[83] By 1940, the number had increased to 50%.​

So no, I reject the premise of your OP, and I certainly reject the title of this thread you invented.

So, those who think as this OP suggests are foolish, and most certainly full of wishful thinking. The facts are what they are, and hijacking facts to fit a socialist narrative may work among those of similar minds, but to the majority they are just empty air.

 

[Mason66]

??

Why si Social Security in there when that is money people have paid in to that program?

 

[Master PO]

refuting you and others doing the attempted hijacking is a public service.

:lol: oh so you can speak of the subject, and carry on about it, but others cannot, if you wish to justify your position you should have spoken out and stated its not part of the OP, and asked to stop, however you did not and participated in the discussion.....you are one of the hi-jackers

 

[Mason66]

I don't get it. :shock:

Where would people on the lower end get money to buy food if capitalism is gone?

 

[haymarket]

Yes, you got it straight.

I disagree with your many. I reject the "mixed economy" meme.

Your admission that you prefer to deny reality just doomed any words that came after since you live in a self made willful delusion that separates you from the reality that mankind inhabits.

 

[haymarket]

Where would people on the lower end get money to buy food if capitalism is gone?

It would depend on what system replaced it.

 

[haymarket]

:lol: oh so you can speak of the subject, and carry on about it, but others cannot, if you wish to justify your position you should have spoken out and stated its not part of the OP, and asked to stop, however you did not and participated in the discussion.....you are one of the hi-jackers

Your attempt to turn every thread you invade into a continuation of your right wing extremist cause celebrate to turn back the clock to the 1700's is indeed off topic.

 

[DVSentinel]

Just read a very thought provoking article. Here it is

Video: The world can't afford another financial crash ? it could destroy capitalism as we know it - Telegraph

As someone who love the Bernie Sanders message and feels we need to get a better control on Wall Street and the banking industry, much of this was music to my ears.

I would be interested in the thoughts of others, specifically to the idea of what the reaction to the next economic crash would be.

More reasons, besides Bernie Sanders, Hillary "the Butcher of Benghazi" Clinton and Barrack "sodaminsane" Obama to buy more guns, more ammo and build bunkers spread throughout the country.

 

[Master PO]

Your attempt to turn every thread you invade into a continuation of your right wing extremist cause celebrate to turn back the clock to the 1700's is indeed off topic.

your intent to label people because of an action you also engage in a a beacon of Hypocrisy

 

[haymarket]

your intent to label people because of an action you also engage in a a beacon of Hypocrisy

If you don't want to be seen as a right wing extremist, you can control that by NOT taking right wing positions. Abolishing the 20th century in terms of political progress is a sure indicator of far right wing desires and support. And at a minimum, that is your desire and aim.

 

[KevinKohler]

Why should having support of 10% of the public get you awarded tax money from the 100%?

Would a candidate with 20% public support get twice as much public funding as one with 10% support?

How would you propose outlaw private support (or negative) ads without violating the constitutional protection of free speech?

The public fund would be divided between all candidates that qualified, regardless if one had more apparent support than another.

As to your second point, there is no way to ban private individuals who want to pay for advertisement. We can, however, modify existing law to stipulate that, A, there is no correspondence between the person buying the add, and the person receiving perceived aid. And I mean NONE. No emails, no dinners, no soliciting of any kind until AFTER their term is over, and they no longer hold office.

Look, there is no way to completely stamp out corruption, ever. But we have to at least look at possible ways to minimize it. Right now, we have an ebay style system for bidding on candidates. It's rediculous, and the government we have received in the last decade or so is the direct result of this. Just saying that we can't completely win is not a reason to not even TRY.

 

[Master PO]

If you don't want to be seen as a right wing extremist, you can control that by NOT taking right wing positions. Abolishing the 20th century in terms of political progress is a sure indicator of far right wing desires and support. And at a minimum, that is your desire and aim.

abolishing the 20th century?

i am for returning to a government which good and stable, and which makes laws in interest of the people -the states- and the union, not just laws made in the peoples interest because that is tyranny.

your goal is to have a democratic government of the peoples interest only, who create all rights and laws, creating a government of tyranny because its based on the majority.

using words like right wing extremist, is very old by desperate move on your part to demonize anything opposite to your ideas, which is based to create a emotional response, ........and i do not respond on emotional based feelings concerning law or the structure of government

 

[haymarket]

abolishing the 20th century?

in terms of political progress... yes indeed.

And why is it you have nothing substantive on topic to say about the OP and the article behind it?

 

[KevinKohler]

Thank you for that idea. I also would prefer a system of public funding but have never seen a detailed proposal that would actually work.

Lets use your reply about a state rep race. In Michigan, there are about 74,000 people in a state rep district. Would that be the base number? Or would you use the number of people who vote for the office which varies from one district to another but could be as low as 16,000? Or would you use the number of people who tend to vote in the primary if it is a primary election which can be less than half of that?

As you can see , depending on the standard, your ten percent number could then range from getting six or seven hundred signatures in a primary to ten times than number if you based it purely on the size of the district with number of people in it.

And in the end, where does that money come from and how much would it be?

I have managed successful Michigan state rep campaigns and it can cost over $40K just to win a primary. And if you are unlucky to live in a district that is NOT gerrymandered and you have to face a viable general election opponent, that figure can easily go over $200K or more in a highly competitive, hard fought for priority district.

So where does the money come from?

Well, first, I'm not sure if it would be considered "state" money, or federal. I guess that would vary based on the job...

A decent chunk of it would be in reducing the wages for some of these people. We have mayors making between 150K-250K, and it just goes up from there. Being a public servant should not mean doing it a few years, and then being set for life. Pensions for these people is another area I wager we could garner some extra funding. Basically, people should not want this job because it's a great job...because it shouldn't be...it should be a downright horrible job. People should sign up to do it because it needs to be done, and SOMEONE needs to do it. Public servants. SERVANTS. Not lords and rulers. Now, I'm not saying strip EVERYTHING away...people doing these jobs need to eat, too. But free million dollar housing, free car, free healthcare for life, free food, no utilities, etc etc etc? Bit much, if you ask me. Those of us who work private sector don't have it NEARLY as good, not even by a country mile. Why is that?

Other ways of finding money? Well, I'm sure there is plenty of surplus in the defense budget. I'm sure local Police Depts don't need quite EVERY SINGLE toy they seem to be blowing money on these days.

In addition, frankly....once we get our government back within our control, and start making sound decisions based on what is best for the people being represented, rather than the rep himself...I think we'll find that our government needs a lot less money.

 

[Master PO]

in terms of political progress... yes indeed.

And why is it you have nothing substantive on topic to say about the OP and the article behind it?

if the tranny of majority rule is progress...then i am for abolishing it.

capitalism should be free market, not one of government picking winners ands losers which is what you favor.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Capitalism is going any wheres. There will always be capitalism in some form or other, no matter what system is in place.

The Soviet/Russian black market probably had a better economy than 1/3 of the world nations in it's heyday.

 

[haymarket]

if the tranny of majority rule is progress...

It isn't.

 

[Master PO]

It isn't.

then why are you for majority rule, and only the interest of the people in making law.