ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Soon as you have income taxes or property taxes the state owns the means of production (people land and materials). Whats that called? Think about it.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

OH it's communist without a doubt we do everything communists do.

Yes and no. It’s a trajectory, but we aren’t there yet. What we have is a splinter of socialism as Marx would define it. Like an abscess eating through the roots. PubEd is an indoctrination factory, property taxes make economic participation involuntary (i.e., a prison state), and what once championed wholesome free market goodness is now state sponsored corporatism (or corporate sponsored statism, different sides of the same coin).

Spoiler

We have capitalism, but we aren’t a capitalist society. We have socialism nascent communism, but we’re neither a socialist nor communist society. More like, playing pretend between two straw effigies.

Soon as you have income taxes or property taxes the state owns the means of production (people land and materials). Whats that called? Think about it.

According to this view Marx was calling for a social revolution that had occurred before he was even born. I think it's safe to say that what you're talking about is clearly not what he meant, and that you're inaccurately reporting what communism means.

I define communism as a social system which aims to ensure "from each according to his ability" AND "to each according to his need." A government that merely taxes people does not qualify as even in the most flexible interpretation it only fulfils the first of the two requirements.

Socialism, in contrast, can be defined as: a social system with a central command economy that aims to ensure "from each according to his ability" AND "to each according to his contribution" — in other words, where the economic planners take from each according to what the planners determine that person is capable of contributing, and gives to each according to how much that person bribes the planners. In order to maintain their positions as planners, it is customary for the planners to bribe the commoners in turn, staving off revolt by ensuring their compliance if not their outright support. It's fair to call the current US government socialist, although perhaps unfair to describe it as completely so.

CHP is wrong about the abscess; socialism doesn't lead to communism. Instead, socialism can devolve into a cannibalization of the bribers by the planners under the false guise of communism (usually to appease the commoners), which is the equivalent of eating the golden goose and has similarly calamitous results.

The bailtout of zillionaires (banks AIG commerical farms) kinda goes against the socialism argument though. They are not paying anti-riot payments but keep your place payments much like the commies did when their industries over or under produced didnt matter.

If the government can tax it they own it because it will eventually be seized for non payment. including you not paying income tax - they take you to jail. Your property they send it to auction. Thats straight up communism IMO here state owns all. We just dress it up with rent for freedom.

BTW what makes you think people would revolt under real capitalism? We never did in early American history. Gini index was lower as well. Naw man, it's just the opposite - more power state gets worse people are off because instead of wealthy having to appeal to all americans for their continued place they only have to buy off a few hundred people in congress the they get a fat grant of discretion which they use to buy off more politicians for even more power. Like a snowball effect. To point we mortgage our future to billionaires who's business fail.

I remember you saying to me one time it's not like when my grandpa came here in 50 years ago with $90 in his pocket and became a millionaire. Well no shit we have more communism than ever expect big pain except for tiny connected class. Especially when dems blame capitalism after next bubble explodes which is soon.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

I wouldn’t; there’s no need to. Amazon represents the new wave of innovations, and attempts to regulate it into submission represent dinosaur money trying to remain relevant in spite of their failures.

Other than not becoming a monopoly (which they aren't doing, even if their competitors are scattered and inefficient), the only regulation which should be in place (for Amazon and all companies) would be to have the US Postal service charge rates that don't lose money. Fixing the postal system is a whole topic of its own.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Give it 30 years or so—perhaps not immediately after Bezos passes down the reigns, but sometime thereafter—and Amazon’s risk of joining ranks with the lizard people grows over time.

Sounds like a reasonable time frame.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Maybe they’ve created a sustainable philosophy?

They have the basics right. If they don't stray into sacrificing the quality/reliability of their service to eke out every bit of profitability, they can sustain their model for quite some time.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Maybe not? All that matters right now is that they have the opportunity to extinct the current generation of deeply entrenched lizard people.

The "lizard people" almost took them on a few years ago. The three primary investors were on board for the 100 billion dollars it would have cost, but when the projected costs went over 150 billion dollars, they started arguing over who would pick up the additional tab. The infrastructure, know how, and technical resources were all there. More importantly, there were (and still are) several patents that would give them some advantages Amazon couldn't do anything about. One of the technological advances is amazing, and I hope they either implement it, or sell it.

The 'Lizard People' deal could still come to pass with the change of some boards. It will be exciting times for consumers if it does happen, as the new conglomerate would improve many aspects to the same degree Amazon did, but from a different aspect. It certainly wouldn't be because of any regulation.

Adaptation is key, as you say.

nvmd

Bush/Obama bailed out banks because it was the government's fault they collapsed. Go read about Bill Clinton's failed economic policies. He tried to force banks to give out shit loans, so people could buy houses they cannot afford.

Most banks refused Clinton's shit incentives, so he sent Janet Reno out to punish them with fake accusations of racist housing loan policies. They accused banks of being racist for not giving home loans to people who could not afford the house.

After that the banks gave up and started doing what Clinton wanted: giving out tons of subprime loans to people who could never pay them.

What Clinton did was insane, and the banks had to be bailed out, cause Clinton nearly single handedly destroyed the economy with all that insanity.

And anytime a Republican complained, the Democrats all started screaming accusations of racism to shut them up.

I blame Republicans the most, for being gutless cowards and not standing up to liars, for fear of being called racist. If we had people like Cruz & Trump back then, there would have been no economic collapse.

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Friedman

Vice Chairman of NK coming to New York. Democrats hate peace talks now.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Vice Chairman of NK coming to New York. Democrats hate peace talks now.

Democrat politicians and typical media are so transparent in their political hate it's funny.

Defend MS-13 gang, hate peace with NK, hate peace with Russia, all for supporting terrorists in libya and syria, hate the economy...

As long as they think they can make trump look bad to mindless fools, they'll do it apparently.

Zero shame.

Part of why we got Trump elected in the first place, and it's only worse for democrats now as their leadership has shifted way to the crazy left on everything it seems.

Gonna be a fun midterms for Republicans.

RIP Roseanne. That tweet was... bad.

In other news, wtf i love dear leader kim now.

http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-blames-us-media-spreading-fake-news-about-what-kim-wants-trump-947994