Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure capitalism doesn't have any government intervention of any kind. You are describing what happens in system such as mercantilism, or corporate capitalism.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. This is paranoid on so many levels.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet true on even more levels.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. This is paranoid on so many levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is paranoid? everything i said is true.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure capitalism doesn't have any government intervention of any kind. You are describing what happens in system such as mercantilism, or corporate capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

so why should i believe pure capitalism can exist?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.
But I'm not sure I agree when you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Well then capitalism only exists in theory, and ancap is [censored] either way. I see no reason to believe you could have a "capitalist" system, i.e. where people sell their labor on the market without the state existing alongside it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you clarify? It seems to me that in a stateless society, there would certainly be a lot less wage labor, but I can certainly imagine there still being some who sell the labor on the market. And theoretically, I see nothing wrong with the idea of X and Y signing a contract in which X does some work for Y, and Y pays him or her a wage? Would this not exist in some forms in a free society?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. This is paranoid on so many levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you claim that capitalists do not create and use political ties for personal gain?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]


I agree with this.
But I'm not sure I agree when you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Well then capitalism only exists in theory, and ancap is [censored] either way. I see no reason to believe you could have a "capitalist" system, i.e. where people sell their labor on the market without the state existing alongside it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you clarify? It seems to me that in a stateless society, there would certainly be a lot less wage labor, but I can certainly imagine there still being some who sell the labor on the market. And theoretically, I see nothing wrong with the idea of X and Y signing a contract in which X does some work for Y, and Y pays him or her a wage? Would this not exist in some forms in a free society?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could happen, but even if it did it would be radically different than now.. I find it unlikely that anyone would work under a capitalist when the could work in a coop or for themselves. I doubt you'd see any big corporations or such as you do now.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]

Wait, you're the one being dogmatic and obtuse. When you make a claim (e.g. I have a "vested interest" in your activities) the burden of proof is on YOU to prove this.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not independant of this country. This is so much more evident then any point I have seen you make. If this country falls into a depression it affects me, if this country's laws change it affects me. The big things affect me, the little things do, that's why Americans take interest in politics. If you would like to define away reality you are welcomed to.[ QUOTE ]
Those who are skeptical do not have to meet any burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ] First off, we are discussing, we are not in a court of law or a laboratory, as such certain things are assumed, and the rules are a bit different since we don't have rules for evidence or a method of peer review. Basic literacy is assumed though, for instance, if I say something like [ QUOTE ]
Vested interest? What does that mean?

[/ QUOTE ] that might be considered doubt, that might might be considered skepticism. But if I add [ QUOTE ]
Other than, "I want to tell other people what to do"?

[/ QUOTE ] there is nothing skeptical or doubtful about this phrase, it is simply a turn of phrase that attempts to obscure an issue. I have no reason to consider myself as having the burden of proof, since, the basic phrase indicates you don't actually care whether or not it is true. You instead seek to throw mud, point fingers and make up definitions.
[ QUOTE ]
By refusing to demonstrate why you actually do have a legitimate interest, and just insisting that you *do* have one, you are being (gasp) dogmatic and obtuse. That's practically the textbook example of dogma: Just do it because I say so.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't vote? I don't have the right to vote in this country? That alone gives me a legitimate interest. Look up legitimate.

As for everything else you posted, it really doesn't merrit a response.

[The once and future king]

Can someone of a socialist mind set exlplain this one to me.

Western Capatalist "exploits" eastern cheap labour.
Makes Teh profit.
Profit gets taxed.
Tax gets redistributed.
Recipients of wealth redistribution use it buy cheap nike trainers.

Result everyone in west is exploiting the worker in the east.

Seems like the fairest thing to do with those tax dollars taken from corps that employ large amounts of foriegn cheap labour is to give it back to the labour that actualy made the wealth in the first place.

This might actualy help the "working class" in America alot more in the long run.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I agree with this.
But I'm not sure I agree when you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Well then capitalism only exists in theory, and ancap is [censored] either way. I see no reason to believe you could have a "capitalist" system, i.e. where people sell their labor on the market without the state existing alongside it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you clarify? It seems to me that in a stateless society, there would certainly be a lot less wage labor, but I can certainly imagine there still being some who sell the labor on the market. And theoretically, I see nothing wrong with the idea of X and Y signing a contract in which X does some work for Y, and Y pays him or her a wage? Would this not exist in some forms in a free society?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could happen, but even if it did it would be radically different than now.. I find it unlikely that anyone would work under a capitalist when the could work in a coop or for themselves. I doubt you'd see any big corporations or such as you do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

that would be fine by just about every ACer here, as long as people get to voluntarily choose what they do.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Make no mistake, "we"(I assume you mean USA?) do not have a capitalist system right now. It's mercantilism, there's a difference because right now there is heavy state intervention in the "free" market. Education, health care, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, our system is not mercantilism. What we have is called a mixed economy. Just having "heavy state intervention" doesn't make the system mercantilism. Mercantalism is defined by exports vastly exceeding imports, something we don't have and therefore the word cannot apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism