In Defense of Capitalism & Free Markets

[orogenicman]

What do you mean - "greedy"? All corporations are required >>BY LAW<< to maximize return for their investors. What would a bank do to become "not greedy"?? Turn down a few good business deals? Demand that depositors accept more than the going rate in interest? What? Your "greedy" screech appeals to the emotions of unschooled, paranoid imbeciles, but is unproveable and even undefined - it's just your mental masturbation.

Excuse me, Rick, but I believe that personal attacks neither add anything to you argument nor are they allowed on the forum. Perhaps if you could instead actually address the content of my response, we might be able to continue our discussion.

Let's start here, shall we?

http://moneymorning.com/2010/04/06/bank-reform/

 

[Rick]

Excuse me, Rick, but I believe that personal attacks

Criticism of your woefully deficient attempt at argument isn't a "personal attack".

neither add anything to you argument nor are they allowed on the forum. Perhaps if you could instead actually address the content of my response, we might be able to continue our discussion.

Let's start here, shall we?

http://moneymorning.com/2010/04/06/bank-reform/

Start with WHAT?? You link to a blog with a bunch of crapola about banks. What is THAT supposed to prove?

Stick to the issue - what EXACTLY does "greed" mean with respect to banks? Is there a cutoff point where if they made more money than X dollars, they're greedy, but if they made less, they're not? Or what??? Speak up - put some real MEANING, SUBSTANCE behind your meaningless slur terms. As for the "content" of your post - there isn't any - just a regurgitation of standard low-brow agitprop words to stir the juices of koolaid lemmings.

 

[orogenicman]

Criticism of your woefully deficient attempt at argument isn't a "personal attack".



Start with WHAT?? You link to a blog with a bunch of crapola about banks. What is THAT supposed to prove?

Stick to the issue - what EXACTLY does "greed" mean with respect to banks? Is there a cutoff point where if they made more money than X dollars, they're greedy, but if they made less, they're not? Or what??? Speak up - put some real MEANING, SUBSTANCE behind your meaningless slur terms. As for the "content" of your post - there isn't any - just a regurgitation of standard low-brow agitprop words to stir the juices of koolaid lemmings.

I see that adult conversation isn't your cup of tea. When you grow up, let me know and we can start this conversation again.

 

[Rick]

I see that adult conversation isn't your cup of tea. When you grow up, let me know and we can start this conversation again.

Learn how to debate based on facts and arguments - obamabot slogans and buzz words aren't worth the disk space on any site.

 

[orogenicman]

Learn how to debate based on facts and arguments - obamabot slogans and buzz words aren't worth the disk space on any site.

The offer still stands, though that would require you to change your attitude, and I don't think that is ever going to happen.

 

[GenSeneca]

1) Proving yet again that there is merit in mixed economy.

Moving the people of your country off the deck of the Hindenburg and onto the deck of the Titanic is not proof of the Titanic's merit.

congressionally mandated rights

Rights do not come from government mandates.

"we the people". Notice that it doesn't say "me the individual".

There can be no "We" or "people" without individuals.

I well understand your anarchist views,

An appeal to ridicule is not a good substitute for a logical argument.

but nowhere in our laws does it say "we, coroporate America".

Our "mixed" economy allows the government to partner with corporations. To end the abuses of government and corporations, we need the same kind of "wall of separation" between the corporations and the state that exists between church and state.

 

[orogenicman]

Moving the people of your country off the deck of the Hindenburg and onto the deck of the Titanic is not proof of the Titanic's merit.

Red Herring.

Rights do not come from government mandates.

Indeed they don't. They come from the people. And it was the peope who elect the representatives who write our laws on our behalf. This is political science 101.

There can be no "We" or "people" without individuals.

And yet nowhere in the Constitution does the word "individual" appear. We are a nation of people from many walks in life. The law works for all or no one, dude.

An appeal to ridicule is not a good substitute for a logical argument.

You would know, since much of what you post is intended to ridicule those with whom you disagree.

Our "mixed" economy allows the government to partner with corporations. To end the abuses of government and corporations, we need the same kind of "wall of separation" between the corporations and the state that exists between church and state.

The purpose of government regulation is not to partner with corporations. The purpose of government regulation is to safeguard the American people from corporate malfeasance. As for partnerships between government and business, there is a need for such partnerships. Without them, we would never have landed on the moon. Without them, medical, scientific, and technological breakthroughs would not be possible.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I see that adult conversation isn't your cup of tea. When you grow up, let me know and we can start this conversation again.

what? I am shocked! lol
Add to the list of the Acorns, Gippers, NoBulls....I am not even sure they read the posts before they attack, just post there next talking point and hope it matches sometimes I think they just want to get me banned by pissing me off so I get yelled at by the mods...though I most of the time try to be good.....most of the time

 

[Rick]

what? I am shocked! lol
Add to the list of the Acorns, Gippers, NoBulls....I am not even sure they read the posts before they attack, just post there next talking point and hope it matches sometimes I think they just want to get me banned by pissing me off so I get yelled at by the mods...though I most of the time try to be good.....most of the time

Most obamabots apparently are too gutless to >>debate<<. Instead they just want to talk to themselves, in a kind of closed loop of idiocy, using their patented collection of slogans, lib media talking points, assumed truisms they've never analyzed, and fuzzy paranoid symbolic mental "images" like "greedy banks" and "big corporations".

 

[orogenicman]

Most obamabots apparently are too gutless to >>debate<<. Instead they just want to talk to themselves, in a kind of closed loop of idiocy, using their patented collection of slogans, lib media talking points, assumed truisms they've never analyzed, and fuzzy paranoid symbolic mental "images" like "greedy banks" and "big corporations".

My offer still stands. Any day now.

 

[Gipper]

Indeed they don't. They come from the people. And it was the peope who elect the representatives who write our laws on our behalf. This is political science 101..

Well well...once again you reveal your lack of knowledge.

The Founders believed our RIGHTS come from GOD! You would rather believe your rights come from liberal elitist politicians than God. But, you are in good company...Our Marxist President believes as you do...

(CNSNews.com) - Just seven days after he sparked controversy by omitting the word “Creator” when he closely paraphrased the passage from the Declaration of Independence that says all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” President Barack Obama again omitted the Creator when speaking about the “inalienable rights” that “everybody is endowed with.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75843

 

[orogenicman]

Well well...once again you reveal your lack of knowledge.

The Founders believed our RIGHTS come from GOD! You would rather believe your rights come from liberal elitist politicians than God. But, you are in good company...Our Marxist President believes as you do...

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of your god or anyone else's. And at least one founder (Thomas Paine) was an atheist, while several others were deists. The following is the basis on which the Constitution was founded:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

God didn't ordain and establish it. The people did through their elected representatives. Are you a dominionist, or what? Oh wait, I see. You are a Robertsite? That's even worse. You have my sympathies.

 

[GenSeneca]

Red Herring.

It's fun to watch you use terms you do not understand. Comparing a command economy with a mixed economy through the use of an analogy is not an attempt to change the subject.

Indeed they don't. They come from the people. And it was the peope who elect the representatives who write our laws on our behalf. This is political science 101.

Rights are not man made. Rights are self evident and unalienable, government's only role is to recognize and protect these rights.

And yet nowhere in the Constitution does the word "individual" appear. We are a nation of people from many walks in life. The law works for all or no one, dude.

Protecting individual rights is in the best interest of the entire population. Arguing against individual rights implies that some individuals are more equal than others (ala Animal Farm).

You would know, since much of what you post is intended to ridicule those with whom you disagree.

Again you use terms you do not understand. Your fallacious claims that my views are "anarchist" is an appeal to ridicule, my pointing out your incorrect use of these terms is not.

The purpose of government regulation is not to partner with corporations.

I was talking about partnerships, not regulation. Banks, Insurance Companies, Car companies, Mortgage companies, Utility Companies, Infrastructure and the Military Industrial Complex are all examples of government partnering with corporations.

The purpose of government regulation is to safeguard the American people from corporate malfeasance.

Except when Governemnt sanctions and supports the "corporate malfeasance"... Hello mortgage crisis.

As for partnerships between government and business, there is a need for such partnerships.

No, there really isn't.

Economics of fascism

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.

Sound familiar to anyone?

 

[RoccoR]

orogenicman, et al,

Form time-to-time, this comes up and is confusing to many.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of your god or anyone else's. And at least one founder (Thomas Paine) was an atheist, while several others were deists. The following is the basis on which the Constitution was founded:

(COMMENT)

It is best if I just quote the founders, from one of the first treaties with the Muslim World.

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Basically, the founders were primarily interested in "commerce" and not religion.

Anyone who thinks that the US can go to war based on some religious issue, simply does not understand the intent of the founder of America. The founders intended that we avoid foreign entanglements; especially if the conflict arose on a religious footing.

Most Respecfully,
R

 

[Rick]

There's no doubt at all that the founders believed in rights originating from God.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.......

It's not mentioned in the Constitution because it was dealt with in the Declaration. The Constitution, as viewed by the founders, was a business-like document written to sort out the practicalities of government organization and operation, not to address philosophical issues.