General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

romanmir01
The Young Turks
comments

Comments by "romanmir01" (@romanmir01) on "Obama Surrenders To Wall Street In New Op-Ed" video.

@djangst Stood silently? No no no no no. It didn't stand silently. It was screaming loudly: TAKE ME. Oh, HERE IS SOME MORE MONEY. OH, LET ME PRINT THIS HUGE STACK OF CASH. Oh Oh OH. Take the cash and stick it into your ... bank account.
1
The real reason why the US economy will crash (is crashing). Is because US economy has been completely undermined by the US government. US gov't has caused untold amount of damage by insane spending on military contracts, civilian contracts, SS, EI, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.etc.etc. None of it is paid for anymore, it's all debt. The debt and inflation and regulations and taxes and ability to move capital to cheaper places made US uncompetitive. BUT it didn't HAVE to be this way.
1
@LeksServices Don't put words into my mouth. I am completely aware that companies always WANT special treatments. SO FUCKING WHAT? The first fucking sell out politician, who gives ANYTHING to ANYBODY must be hung by the neck until death. Or at least voted out of the office first, and then shot in the head. Because no politician has that authority under the Constitution to give anybody any special privileges. BTW., you are a piece of shit for assuming things about me
1
@QuatFax HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA You are just a funny person. You think people THEMSELVES decide, ha? NO. There is no such thing. Do you know what people do, once they remove ONE power from gov't? They become the new power. What do you think happens once you take the reigns of power? You think you want to share them? What do you think happened in the USA - a democratic republic? Why is it so fucked? because the gov't has been taken over by those, who want power
1
@QuatFax Check your history. 19 century USA, mostly unaffected by US gov't intervention into economy and importantly without the Fed and income taxes, so gov't stayed small. The result of that capitalist society with industrial economy was FALL of prices, not rise of prices. Throughout the 19 century the US dollar has appreciated in value by a factor of 2, the prices fell from year to year, rather than rising, all this while USA was the real production powerhouse of the global economy.
1
@QuatFax The next step was Коллективизация - Kollektivizatsia - Collectivization. Every single farmer was robbed of his land. That's right. No farmer could own their own land anymore. By the decree of the state all personal land was confiscated for the 'common good'. Do you know WHY the revolutionaries took away the land from even the lowest class farmers? Because even the lowest class farmers could still feed themselves somehow. But the revolutionaries COULD NOT! Only those who work - eat
1
@QuatFax What you are talking about is government colluding with private interests and creating monopolies through the power of authority and basically through threat of violence. When a government picks a preferred corporation, it basically says: you are going to make money. Then it also says to all of the natural competitors of that corporation: you are not going to make money. It also says to consumer: you will pay higher prices because we are creating a monopoly. that's not capitalism
1
@QuatFax Cooperation does not result in any innovation, it results in decisions made by committee, where nobody wants to work, everybody is just trying to get to the top of the food chain. Too bad there is nothing to eat anywhere throughout the chain. Also saying: 'competition is only good for autocrats and advocators of violence' - shows your huge bias against consumers. CONSUMERS - people that society consists of, are the major beneficiaries of competition. They want low prices,high quality
1
@QuatFax Also you are confusing for some reason self-management and socialism. There is no way those two are even remotely related. Self-management, free market way of choosing your purchases, choosing with who you will deal, who will be your supplier, what you will do for business etc., none of it is compatible with socialism. Socialism requires control over means of production, whether total control (communis) or control through taxes/labor unions (fascism). But it won't let you be.
1
@QuatFax In Mussolini's Italy unions were quite strong, but even in Nazi Germany there was a union merged from all other unions, albeit it was done by force and in order to remove any political opposition from the previously existing unions, but DAF was a union nevertheless. Fascism and Communism are very similar systems, in Communism the means of production are completely taken away from private ownership and in Fascism they are instead left in the private hands, but with unions and high taxes
1
@QuatFax First of all mercantilism was originally a name for what Arab merchants were doing, moving goods around, working with state officials to make sure they get preference. Mercantilism is a protectionist system, supposedly there to enrich the powers at the top of the nations. Capitalism is first of all - savings. Savings is what a capital is. Whether you have had preferential treatment form gov't or were a farmer or found an oil well or formed a store or a bank, you saved capital.
1
@QuatFax They came after the 'middle size farmers' - 'middle class farmers' - those who didn't have enough to hire outside help, but who were OK, they were making money, they were working, their entire families were working, they fed themselves just fine and sold the rest and had some money. Well, those were next in line. Sure, rob them. Starve them. Kill them. But what do we find out after that's done? OMG! The society DID NOT GET RICH! So what do you do? Guess what. There is the next step
1
@QuatFax You will have your initial cooperation, when you gang up against the 'rich'. But then this thing will happen, which is exactly what happened in the former USSR. First the Tsar was rich and was the enemy, kill him. Then the 'temporary government' (Временное Правительство) became the enemy and revolutionaries decided to take matters into their own hands, once they understood that they are not getting richer just because they killed the Tsar and robbed the Treasury. civil war started
1
@QuatFax Then it was time of the rich industrialists, some ran away, just left everything, grabbed whatever they could bring with themselves, and ran away. Sure, the 'cooperators' took that. But it didn't make the society rich, just some of the 'revolutionaries' became more wealthy personally. Then the question became: but what does that mean, we killed, we robbed, why isn't the society rich? Well, obviously MORE PEOPLE MUST BE KILLED AND ROBBED. So they went after the farmers! That's right.
1
@bodryn Oh, I know about plenty of such cases, the USA today has an entire class of political prisoners, you should search for Irwin Schiff
1
@QuatFax Capitalism is about somebody saving money privately, that is WHY the ownership of means of production is private. Do you know what happens to money that is 'saved' by more than one individual normally? It gets consumed. You can't have capitalism, without somebody who is prudent enough to save the money and also to save it from being consumed and instead putting the money to work. That's not easy and most people can't, they want others to do it for them, people just want to consume
1
@bodryn Hey, you do not want the job - nobody is forcing you to take it. Go organize your own employment, what's the difference? If you have enough capital you can organize any type of labor and capital into a productive investment. Whatever useless points you were making, you failed to explain how they are related to using labor and capital to generate wealth Some people can organize capital and labor: watch?v=kvf29R7nXlM people like you cannot even understand what that means.
1
@QuatFax The government intervention was always about the rule of the powerful, those who can KILL you. All of that creates protectionism, racket, monopolies, etc. I view the government primarily as the source of coercion, a system that steals freedoms and money from people. Free market capitalism is the polar opposite of this. Capitalism is only using savings to build a business. Free market capitalism is having to compete in a system unencumbered by one force (government).
1
Cenk is wrong. USA federal's gov't CENTRAL ROLE is to ensure that people have Freedoms and Liberties. People must be Free to live and to do business and to say things. They must be Free and first of all they must be Free from gov't oppression. That is the CENTRAL thing that gov't is there for - to make sure that there is a gov't, so that the space of gov't is occupied, and whatever gov't is, its role is to keep people Free. How many of you believe that US gov't is keeping its people Free?
1
@QuatFax Slavery WAS legitimate at the time.
1
@QuatFax countless times in history what we DID observe is that all of such attempts at socialism have failed, some quicker than others. I literally have dozens of examples right from the top of my head, I was born in one such place, which doesn't even exist anymore because of where it went with these notions. People cooperate by competing. Competition is the only thing that allows creating efficiencies in the market and lowering costs, thus allowing more savings. Savings= capital=investment
1
@QuatFax That's a misunderstanding. People are competing all the time, and that's what improves our standard of living. I am constantly trying to outcompete the other guy, you think it's bad, well, I am creating products that have more features, easier to user, trying to solve the problem in a new way that will be more optimized and it's cheaper, and my product if used by other businesses will end up lowering end cost for consumers. I wouldn't be doing it if there was no profit motive.
1
@QuatFax But when I or somebody else wins, what do you think the society gets? Society gets the fruits of the labor from people who won in the battle against other people. How do you think products are created? If Steve Jobs was listening to the crowd and didn't have his ideas, there wouldn't have been anything like iPod, iPhone, iPad. Those things are HIS VISION. He outcompeted the others, now everybody is emulating HIS VISION and people buy his products - thus the standard of living WENT UP
1
@bodryn "Are you here just to exploit others for profit?" - No. I am there to enjoy what I can do. "you ought to care whether they can have a decent lifestyle regardless of their stations in life." - bunk. Total irrevocable bunk. I don't care about 7 billion people any more than you or anybody else, that's stupid. I do however do what I do, which apparently benefits enough people that I can make a living off of it. I provide a useful thing that people buy. That's more than most do.
1
@QuatFax BULLSHIT. Why didn't USSR produce more? USSR - starvation. China - starvation. Cuba - starvation. WTF kind of data do you have there? You know what China is doing now? It's now CAPITALIST China, winning all around. You know what China had in 1958-1962 starvation and deaths of tens of millions. My great-grandparents were kicked off their land in Ukraine in the thirties, with a family of 18, only 3 survived, all of the food they produced was stolen by 'communists'. Cooperation? ha.
1
@QuatFax You are so funny, you think people want to cooperate because they are so great. NO. People DO cooperate. Do you KNOW WHEN they cooperate? People cooperate when they decide to take something away from somebody by force. For example: if nobody has a steam engine, I build one, I sell a number of them to businesses and make more money, come up with more engines, farmers become factory workers, eventually they see me with money and they want to take MY MONEY away. So they cooperate.
1
@romanmir01 US was EXTREMELY competitive before, when the gov't wasn't spending and mis-allocating all of these private resources the way they started doing since the Fed was created in 1913 and they could start printing their own ticket, and since the US people were ROBBED of their money through IRS and Income taxes and denied ability to start competing businesses. US gov't needs to be stopped. All US people must stop paying their income taxes NOW. US gov't must be stopped from spending.
1
@Fishdogpigsquirrel US Federal gov't under the Constitution does not have authority to take over private businesses, to regulate them, to tax them, etc. The gov't of USA eventually cracked the Constitution, first by getting itself money printing press, then by taxing income to kill off competition and then by all regulations to kill competition. A buck or two is what gov't is making by selling your economy to the lowest bidder, congrats.
1
@QuatFax Modern sense is broken and has destroyed the economy and will finish it off completely, all obviously, due to the gov'ts getting their hands into business. Today's USA is quite Fascist in terms of its economics. Fascism was about letting the private ownership be mostly nominal, while the greatest rewards were ripped by the state through taxes and politically loyal labor unions. It was extremely statist, just like USA is today. there is no free market, gov't'll finish the economy off
1
@Fishdogpigsquirrel Fuck you, you piece of human excrement. Federal gov't has no Constitutional authority on anything at all beyond minimum military to make sure people are Free and not slaves to other nations. Oh, also Federal gov's is there to do only one more thing: negotiations with other nations. That's all. Partnerships with other nations. Not wars. by the way, when the question stands: you or I, you should ask yourself: "do I actually have any guns".
1
@QuatFax YES. You CAN cooperate with this other person in your vision. But TOGETHER you are BOTH competing with some other PAIR of people, who also have a vision. And you know what? If YOUR vision is better and you can do better than the other team, then the society WINS because if you succeed through FIGHTING it means your products is BETTER. The winning product is better in something, either price or quality or both or something else. But when gov't gets involved, the winner is NOT better
1
@QuatFax Well, listen, go ahead, build your dream society where people cooperate and care, etc. Just realize that it is unnatural for people to cooperate on that scale. We are individuals. There is a reason we compete - nature has selected for people who compete while in the process they cooperate through competition. It's the opposite of bees, who do cooperate, but there is no individuality there, only the queen, everybody else is a slave. What you are talking about is slavery for the mind.
1
@QuatFax You save and invest, that is what capitalism is. Capitalism (not monopolysm or oligarchy created by the government) is a recent invention, but it predates all of the social movements that only could take place once capitalists appeared. The REASON why there are social movements in the first place is because capitalism with industrialism moved people from being subsistence farmers to urban factory workers. Nobody forced them, but it became the preferred way of life.
1
@bodryn The 19 century USA was an unstoppable productivity machine. It was an innovations engine. It was a wealth generator. It was doing all of that despite gov't that was actually even in those times helping certain people and certain companies to be, what was robber barons and tycoons. In reality the gov't has always done economic damage to the people of the country. But during the 19 century it was just not able to spend enough to grow immensely as it was in 20th due to the creation of Fed
1
@bodryn The US corporations, the ones that are taking advantage of the US people and of the unstoppable printing press, that the Fed is, those are NOT capitalist organizations. Those are gov't created and protected and maintained monopolies, and they will absolutely continue robbing you. USA had a working system that was making the citizens richer and richer every year, by actual DEFLATION, (amazing, isn't it) when prices were constantly falling year to year, dollar value was rising.
1
@QuatFax If you have some form of savings, then you can have your capital, regardless of your political believes. But no way a socialist movement of any significant size can exist where INDIVIDUALS are NOT trying to get ahead regardless of the socialist movement, whether it's dictatorial or cooperative. There is no way you will not have individuals trying to save, so they can have their own private capital and investment separately from all the other drones, unless maybe it's a religious cult.
1
@QuatFax Also you are quite confused about another thing: there is no such thing as decentralized form of socialism. Socialism cannot be decentralized by definition. Socialism has many many many different features and forms, but it cannot act as free market or as anarchy would. Socialism, whether leaning towards communism or towards fascism/nazism, either way, it is statist in nature, it REQUIRES OVERPOWERING GOVERNMENT You can't have socialism without taxing the productive segment everywhere
1
@QuatFax If we do know something about cooperation, is that in most cases when it concerns new products, new services, new ideas - cooperation is very often standing in the way. It's called design by committee. People compete because that's the way they EXPRESS THEMSELVES. Why would I want to be subjected to the whims of some schmuck on how to do MY BUSINESS? Do YOU CARE what my ideas are? Do you CARE what my business is? Well I don't care about yours. I don't want to cooperate, I want to win
1
@QuatFax Even that's not true. Socialism doesn't do savings. Socialism is about spending a lot of money, if the money that are pulled out of taxes, then fine, but eventually all gov't spending causes gov't to grow and it starts borrowing. Socialism cannot do capitalism, because socialism is NOT about savings, it's about giving a bunch of money to a bunch of people who never made it, so it's the opposite of savings at least in that specific way. Capitalism is savings , that's WHY it's private
1
@QuatFax Bullshit. Bullshit. BULLSHIT. People tried this a number of times. People are producing precisely NOTHING when their economy is not based on the profit motive. I was born in the USSR. The country DID have some people who worked and produced, but as an economy it was a fucking ridiculous FAILURE of MAJOR proportions, which ended up destroying the economy and society. Cooperation only works through competition.
1
What cost US jobs IS THE GOVERNMENT. The government of United States of America is KILLING, DESTROYING US CAPITALISM. Capitalism means there is CAPITAL. US gov't is destroying capital. US gov't is DESTROYING SAVINGS. Savings are destroyed by ridiculous interest rates, by printing of US dollars, by putting country into UN-REPAYABLE debt. This is what destroys us savings. Savings are capital. Capital means investment and this means jobs and good produced. US lost it all because of gov't.
1
There WILL BE another crash. There is not a single doubt in any real investor's mind, that's why all the US municipalities and many States are shorted. Oh, there will be carnage. US BONDS will crash. US gov't will print US dollars to buy back all the bonds - that IS the default - printing money to buy debt back. But to blame lack of regulations for it? Cenk has no idea what regulations are, that's because he never tried starting an investment company in US in the past 10 years. Good luck there
1
@bodryn Government is not supposed to be governing corporations. US Federal gov't has authority under the Constitution to look out after US citizens' Freedoms first of all, that's the entire GOAL of having a government. But it has nothing to do with business. You do your business, why do you need gov't to tell you how to do your business? Gov't can provide a workable Justice system to make sure people have some anchoring in terms of an established law, but nothing else needs to be governed.
1
@QuatFax Cooperation happens, but it's cooperation through competition. I compete with this dude, he competes with me, we all compete against this other guy, etc.etc.etc. In the market competition means that it is the end customer who wins. He gets better products, more of them, better quality and lower prices. Gov't can only do one thing: raise price/destroy quality. I am not going to share my time with anybody for any reason other than to get ahead unless it's my family/friends
1
@bodryn Corporations are not there to keep you Free. That's exactly the job of gov't - that's the only job that gov't has by the Constitution. Corporations are there to make money. You are a person, you can have your corporation to make you money. You can succeed or you can fail, and that's where gov't is not supposed to be stepping in, either helping you or drowning you BP problem was gov't created - subsidized monopoly, regulated to drill in deep water with moral hazard of 10Million by gov't
1
@QuatFax People are cooperating, but they are cooperating by being competitive. Competition within each little segment of market causes products to be better, creates new products, even creates entire new industries. What did you think Mr. Watt did, with his improvements to the steam engine, when he added the condenser to it, to have the temperature in the main boiler stay constant and thus increasing the energy output by 75%? He competed. All others lost that competition, but society won.
1
@QuatFax Your statement that USSR was not cooperative.... Look, USSR did a bunch of 'cooperative' things. VERY cooperative. When they cooperated to murder 30 million Ukrainians by starving them to death by stealing their food - that was very very cooperative, you don't get those kinds of results without massive cooperation. When they built the BAM (the railroad across the entire country) millions of people worked on it and died building it, cooperatively. When the WWII started, 30-40 million
1
@QuatFax Yeah, you are only 94 years too late. Do you know why you are 94 years too late? Because there was a person 94 years ago, who said exactly the same thing: Каждая кухарка может управлять страной. (Kajdaya kuharka mojet upravliat' stranoj) - Every cook (but in Russian 'kuharka' is a 'female cook') can command a country. You think you are the first one to think of all of this? Do you know how this ends? A bloodshed and a number of lost generations and a destroyed economy and country
1
@QuatFax Governments last longer because they print money. Governments print money, print bonds, etc., you are saying that state is enemy of labor union? What a joke! Labor unions are only left on the state level and in monopolies that are supported by the state. As to labor unions being great for the 'workers' - sure, unless you are like me and you never join a labor union even when given an opportunity Labor union destroys competition and destroys efficiency and rewards seniority, forget it
1
@QuatFax You think I am not cooperating, but competing because of state? What? NO. I want to compete. The state is trying to prevent me from competing with every step I take. Income taxes - taking away my money, which I am not spending on leisure and consumables, but saving so I can INVEST into MY IDEAS. Inflation /printing/borrowing - destroying my ability save in currency. I understand what's happening, I try to go around many of these state hurdles that prevent competition
1
@truckbiz15 all of them are wrong, all of these points are wrong. From one corner of the mouth Obama says: less regulations. From the other corner he says: I am appointing this ex GE CEO - Jeffrey Immelt, To Run New Jobs-Focused Panel. It's all bullshit. Obama says: I am pro free-market on one side, on the other he says: we will create tax incentives for this or that company to do what we want. There is no free market inside his head, only rubbish.
1
@QuatFax First they came after the richest farmers, they even invented a name for them: Кулак - KULAK - FIST. That's right, the 'fists', those who owned land and who were able to hire others. Well, those became the next target and that was part of the civil war - killing those farmers and robbing them. Then even this was not enough! The society was still NOT getting richer. OK, MORE KILLING MUST BE DONE! That's right, then they came after the 'Середняк' - 'Seredniak' - 'Person in the Middle'
1
@QuatFax There IS NO COOPERATION in POWER. There is NOBODY who wants to cooperate once they have power. NOBODY wants to be in power cooperating. Cooperation is a TEMPORARY PROCESS, which is REPLACED by totalitarian regime. By dictatorship of some sort. Governments, even democratic in nature and by design, fail to deliver the cooperation because people want to take. They should not have power. Instead of 'cooperating' in gov't, they should be competing in private sector. That's healthier
1
@QuatFax Because people ONLY cooperate together long enough, while they can act as a crowd to steal money from somebody. But once it comes to WORKING, once it comes to producing wealth, that's it, you are done. There is NOBODY who wants just to cooperate with no clear vision, goals, incentives, profit motives, anything that does not benefit them directly. Why the fuck would they? They are SMARTER THAN YOU. You think you can have your super cooperative society with people-bees. They know better
1
@QuatFax What does this mean to you: workers control the means of production. Who is governing the workers? Who CREATED the means of production by SAVING the capital to create it first? There is no such thing as a 'socialist movement' without government - it is simply a misunderstanding. You are either talking about some sort of a dictatorial govt (Communism/Fascism) or you are talking about some sort of a cooperative government (Kibutz or some religious cult or a tribe of some sort)
1
@QuatFax Eventually the 'revolutionaries' for the 'common good' have eradicated an entire segment of the population who was SELF SUFFICIENT ENTREPRENEUR That's right. Even if you weren't a farmer, you were a shoemaker, you were a black smith, you were a baker, you were whatever you can imagine - all of the people were turned into a mass of people who could no longer think for themselves It was not done in one year, or with one generation. It was done bloodily and gradually. For the common good
1
@QuatFax So when you say: "USSR and China was not cooperative enough for my definition" Well guess what! It never WANTED TO COOPERATE. It was doing fine before all this nonsense and all this coerced cooperation, which turned out very violent and very bloody. The people were working and were competing and they did not need somebody to FORCE them into cooperation Judging from this, I can tell you - you will have to go the same route to achieve your goal - murder a lot of people and get nowhere
1
@QuatFax I am not missing your point, you are missing mine. My point is that nobody was asking for this 'cooperation'. My point is that people who already work and can feed themselves are not looking for 'cooperation' with others, who will not work as much and will not feed themselves. Cooperation is good only for those, who will not work, who want to steal. That's the only real cooperation that ever took place. All other forms of cooperation in societies happen through market competition.
1
@QuatFax Also on the point of labor unions and state. WTF are you talking about? The only real labor unions that are left, are all in state monopolies, either in government itself or in monopolies that are ran by the government. All of the non-state companies, that had unions, are out of business. The only place where labor unions even exist anymore are governments and gov't monopolies. The labor unions have driven out businesses out of business, the gov'ts take longer to be destroyed.
1
@QuatFax sit-downs - that's like walking into somebody's private property and taking over, right? In USA you can even SHOOT people for entering your private property unwanted, so I fail to see the problem with this. The factory is private property. I'd just bring in mercs and remove by force everybody who didn't leave in 5 minutes. If it's my private property, get out. But I see that you are the one who is pro-violence. I wouldn't be in a union, I'd be working, you'd have me killed there.
1
@QuatFax Without competition there is no trial and error. There is no discovery of new ideas. Competition makes people TRY new things RISK stuff. Cooperation is statist and at worst it is dictatorial. I reject all dictatorships. You still didn't answer the question: WHICH FREEDOMS will you take away from me, to FORCE me into cooperation? Because I am NOT doing it on my own, TRUST ME. I am NOT going to stop competing and start just following the herd of cooperation. So will you SHOOT me?
1
@QuatFax Also you think it is the state that prevents cooperation? The state? You think you need to remove some state 'hurdles' that prevent cooperation? WHAT? State is the definition of monopolization through cooperation between powerful interests and politicians. Politicians are cooperating alright, cooperating among each other, cooperating with their monopolies. That's the point. They are cooperating to take away everything from us.
1
@QuatFax So unless you are going to find a bunch of people who subscribe to your ideas precisely, what are going to do? I'll tell you what has been done. People can't find almost anybody who agrees with them, so when they bring out such ideas they form a circle of like-minded drones around themselves but then, once they have some power, they coerce the rest to comply by force. Force, that's what you will need. You will have to be bloody. You will have to kill a lot of people.
1
@QuatFax There is no question that withing cooperative context there will be eventually no savings left at all. How can you have savings, if you are not competing, if the market is not working towards commoditization of products, if there is no push to cut costs and create savings? Savings don't appear when there is gov't and all this cooperation - only SPENDING is created this way and then, when there is no production it's spending and BORROWING. Once on that path, that's the end.
1
@QuatFax State taxes to kill competition. State regulates to kill competition. State subsidizes monopolies to kill competition. State prints, so it can spend, so it can buy votes, so that it can have power, so it can kill competition. State does every single thing to kill competition and you are telling me there are 'state hurdles' in the way of cooperation? yeah, we are from alternative, non-intersecting universes for sure.
1
@QuatFax What? :) You are typing on a computer. Have you seen a computer that existed only 30 years ago? Like Altair? The lasic eye surgery is not paid for by the gov't, so it's competitive and it has gotten progressively cheaper and better. The food industry, maybe you need a little reminder that only 200 years ago 95% of people were subsistence farmers and capitalism and competition allowed them to stop doing that and now only 5% of people feed 100%. Competition raises standard of living
1
@bodryn But government is NOT supposed to be governing corporations! That's not what government has authority for at all. Corporations, if you move away from the monopolies that exist today only because the gov't created and maintained and protected them and bailed them out and stimulated them and gave them money and taxed for them and killed their competition, corporations, the normal corporations that do not enjoy gov't protectionism that's just people organizing capital and labor.
1
@QuatFax Maybe it could or maybe not. As I said: Steve Jobs is NOT listening to anybody, he has a vision and he is pushing it. He has people he is cooperating with - his employees. They are working together as a team. BUT They are competing against a whole industry of other companies. Who wins at the end if not the society by having the best product win? Oh, common. Did USSR produce iPad/iPhone/whatever that ANYBODY wanted? Well, some weapons probably.
1
@QuatFax In US the labor unions are left only in gov't, all companies that had unions in them that weren't gov't promoted monopolies have failed. That's the reason why you don't see labor unions in private companies, not any lack of gov't pro-union regulation.
1
@QuatFax And at the end you are not going to get what you want. What you will get will be horrible for most people, but some will benefit from it. You can start with ideas of cooperation based on class warfare - sure, rob the rich, whatever. But eventually that kind of cooperation falls apart, when it becomes clear - society does NOT become rich just by robbing the rich people. Society becomes rich by promoting being rich. By promoting competition. By promoting savings and capital investment.
1
@QuatFax and I am against slavery for the mind. You think I am abnormal somehow, that I completely reject your ideas and would fight anybody who tried impose them on me? No. I am very very normal in that sense. I do not want to be part of the herd. I want to compete. I want to do something better than the other guy. I want to win. Winning is everything. Winning in war, in money, in love, in things you like to do, etc. What you propose goes against my nature and against my conscience.
1
@QuatFax 30-40 million people died cooperatively in the WWII in USSR to win that war FOR STALIN goddamnit, even my great parents went to that war, one even was in biggest battle of all tank battles, at Kursk. His tank blew up, he survived, found himself in Auschwitz, spent 2 years there. After war, when my mother was already 18 y.o., he hang himself, probably from all the cooperation. People cooperated to send the fucking rockets to space, to built the biggest army etc.etc. But to what end?
1
@QuatFax If what you do is have 'solidarity', then it means that EVERYBODY who wants to work on that same thing joins you instead of going on their own. Do you FORCE them to join you? Do you make it ILLEGAL for them to go on their own? I want you to tell me - which FREEDOM will you take away to make sure that you do NOT have competition from other people who do NOT want to join you? I know how this works. You want gov't to FORCE people to cooperation. FUCK. THAT.
1
@QuatFax Of-course slavery is legitimate if it is socially acceptable and in fact also legal at the time. So is murdering prisoners by state executioner if they are found guilty for crimes, which require capital punishment. Morality is relative to the time and place and society, aren't you saying exactly the same thing when you argue that private property is only a function of current system of government?
1
@QuatFax Sure, working for interest is great. Too bad majority of people do not work for interest, they work because they have to eat. Nobody cleans toilets for interest. Nobody works at a farm 12 hour days for interest. Nobody is sweeping the streets for interest. SOME people have interest, but they can only afford such jobs IF society is so wealthy, that it allows very very very narrow specialization. The society that is THAT wealthy MUST be capitalist and competitive in nature.
1
@QuatFax USSR and China etc., they were highly cooperative societies. BUT THE COOPERATION WAS COERCED. Cooperation was coerced. It was forced. People were killed. People were sent to labor camps. People were imprisoned and tortured. It was ALL IN THE NAME OF COOPERATION AND COMMUNISM AND THE COMMON GOOD. Do you know what I want to do for the common good? I want to put every single person on the planet who wants a repeat of USSR/China and shoot them in the eye myself with prejudice.
1
@QuatFax FIrst of all 'wages going higher for everybody involved' is a BAD thing, not a good thing. That's monopolistic approach to labor market, it destroys competition just as well, so it's collusion, but fine, I am not against PRIVATE labor unions, only against gov't laws promoting and subsidizing labor unions. Wages going up, push production costs up, so why should the consumers of businesses get the short end of the stick? I am against inflation, you know.
1
@QuatFax Capitalism cannot be product of Fascism at all, because capitalism appeared on the horizon BEFORE the statists took power, BEFORE the state started getting these HUGE revenues from taxes and from license fees and regulatory activities killing a number of businesses to support a preferred monopoly, BEFORE any labor unions appeared on the horizon in the first place, because capitalism is only this: SAVINGS. Capitalism is an economic system based on SAVINGS.
1
@QuatFax Capitalism is about savings, and look how your idea falls apart dramatically, when you say that capitalism relies on the state: 1. State inflates money, thus punishing savings. 2. State pushes idea that consumption is the key in economy, not production. 3. State punishes the production and rewards the consumption, look at the tax code with income taxes and with tax rebates. 4. State BORROWS TO SPEND. That's antithesis of saving and antithesis of capitalism. What you are talking about
1
@QuatFax Also WHO decides what is COMMON GOOD? Do you know what happens when a bunch of people start 'cooperating' on deciding what the 'common good' is for the society? Dictatorship of one kind of another. USSR happens. Nazi Germany happens. Red China happens. Cuba. Venezuela. etc.etc. It's all bullshit and I wouldn't be part of it. ENOUGH people have suffered because the 'common good' was decided this way. I am against 'common good' completely, I don't want any part of it. I want MY good.
1
@QuatFax "The idea that someone can own a factory that he or she doesn't work in without the permission of the people who use that factory is arbitrary." - really? I own a number of properties where I do not live personally, does that mean in your world I do not really own them, even though I bought them, paid for them? Well, I know who I am talking to here for sure now. Did I say I was an anarchist? No. You don't care to listen, that's fine. Have fun.
1