Comments by "romanmir01" (@romanmir01) on "Pope Francis Goes Off On Capitalism" video.

Funny, the pope is for THEFT. Armed robbery of money by government from some in order to subsidise others.
4
Aliquis Ah, the nonsensical Marxist notion of surplus labour. Well, I mean, what's there to talk about? There is no such thing, it's an absolutely retarded idea, nothing to talk about.
1
Sigmund Frued Don't you dare comparing yourself to USA founders. They fought for freedom FROM government oppression, you want to install and maintain government oppression over the individual.
1
apocalypseap I am not against WalMart, I think they are a very efficient business, doing exactly what the market rewards it for doing, though I think they are OVERPAYING their employees, because they get hundreds of resumes per position. I know that I post a position in my company, I don't get hundreds of responses, if I did, I would immediately know that I am offering too much money for the job.
1
sumrandumguy1 What do you mean "no point"? AFAIC the "common people" who believe in such nonsense are the enemy of the economy and of morality.
1
***** Oh, that's easy - the mob put them there because it is corrupt. The corrupt mob puts the corrupt politicians in charge because the corrupt politicians offer more corruption (theft - armed robbery and redistribution of the proceeds).
1
***** oh, but it's very simple, the government split people into groups and is treating them differently with different sets of laws. These groups are divided by their income levels, so if you make more money than another guy, your RATE of income tax is different. So basically people with lower RATES of tax are in a different group from people with higher rate.
1
***** Anybody who believes that somebody else will be taxed when new taxes come out. Socio-economic demographic of people who prefer collectivism is simple: they are most likely not business owners, they are most likely not employers. It's the employers that are in the minority, that's who the political elite rallies the employee troops against and that's who the mob sends the politicians into the government to steal from.
1
apocalypseap Well, if I am a joke, then you don't have to reply, do you? WalMart is overpaying its workers because it gets hundreds of applicants per opening. WalMart made less in profits than they paid out in payroll, their profits is NONE of the issue here, their profits are secondary to the question: are they in fact overpaying their employees based on the market pricing of those employees? And I am saying: yes, they are overpaying their employees, otherwise they wouldn't be getting hundreds of applications per new position.
1
apocalypseap It's not my problem that you can't parse what you read. WalMart is overpaying its employees based on the number of applicants they get per opening. WalMart is making less money in profits than the overall amount of money that the government gets from all the taxes that WalMart pays (in all taxes, sales, income, payroll, etc.) WalMart employes millions of people, they are selling to a huge customer base because they satisfy customer demand for low prices. WalMart is a fine company, I wish that my company could be like WalMart at some point in time, I can't compare, my company is tiny compared to WalMart, but I woudln't be overpaying people the way they do.
1
apocalypseap Yes, the system is broken, you can have all the fun you like, but you don't understand what is broken, why it's broken and what is needed to be done to fix it. The system is broken because of collectivism taking over what used to be free market capitalist society.
1
apocalypseap You keep replying to my comments, what's the fascination? I do care about the economy, which is why I am against all forms of government provided welfare, against all forms of income redistribution, against all forms of business regulations, against all forms of income taxation, against all forms of money manipulation by the gov't. Unlike you I actually see the big picture, and it's not pretty for the collectivists, even though they don't actually understand it. I do want to make as much money for myself as I possibly can, to do that, I have to build the best products I can and to find most customers that I can.
1
***** Rand was an objectivist I am an anarcho capitalist.
1
***** The only 'plutocrats' that are stealing from the productive people are found in the government, and the thieving mob gives it the power to commit armed robbery against the productive people.
1
HyrdaRancher I am against government intervention, including trade market, copyright and patent protections, which allow monopolies to exert power over markets.
1
apocalypseap you are still here, for some reason still replying to my comments. Are my comments so enticing, you like the product (the comments) so much, you can't stop yourself from participating, from being a consumer of my content?
1
***** Of-course there is rational self-interest, I said I am not an objectivist, so if you don't understand anarcho capitalism, you may want to learn about it before commenting.
1
HyrdaRancher Yes, it is not only "perfectly normal", it is what I would expect any rational individual running a business to do: to hire their own private security force to prevent looting.
1
Beelzeboogie I don't have a problem with people suppressing a native uprising. AFAIC you have to be able to protect your property to own it, with the State this becomes problematic, as the State is clearly a large monopoly on violence, which is why it is the preferred system of the oppressive collectivist regimes - socialism, fascism.
1
apocalypseap I see that you are still consuming the product here.
1
apocalypseap Not all products have a direct payment associated with them. By the way, you forget something: they who laugh last laugh best.
1
HyrdaRancher If you are an employer, you know perfectly well that you don't have the power to force anybody to work for you. That's why I can't pay my employees 20 cents an hour for example, nobody would work for me. I have to pay them what they would agree to, because they have to weigh that wage against the cost of their leisure time OR of the cost of taking lead and actually working for themselves. Nobody is stopping anybody from working for themselves, it's only a matter of rational choices. You are forgetting something as well, the people that are your customers have to be REAL customers, as in the trade with them should give YOU something, not just meaningless paper. So in the simplest terms all trade is about trading GOODS that we produce, we are exchanging goods (or claims on goods, which is money). So if there are only 2 employers, it stands to reason that nobody else is producing anything that they can exchange. That's because either we are employing 100% of the population, or there are people that are not working for us, but are still eating, it means they are subsistence farmers or hunters / gatherers or fishers, etc. They can't exchange the output of their labour for other people's labour in any meaningful way, they are not specialised enough to have the economies of scale to hunt / gather / farm / fish for more, than just themselves. So WHO is really exchanging the overproductive capacity here? If you and I are the ONLY 2 employers, it means you and I are exchanging productive overcapacity. The workers that we hire also exchange the productive capacity of their own with each other and this is only happening in the economy with 2 functioning companies, so that means in between the 2 of us we produce everything necessary for survival of a human being. Do you understand what I am saying? The economy is not about millions of dollars (that's just storage - claims on future consumption against the OTHER company), the economy is about our ability, as companies to produce. THAT is what is borked, totally broken in collectivism, they don't see, they don't understand, they don't care about what the economy is. They think money is the economy, not realising that money is just a claim on future consumption, but to engage in future consumption there has to be a form of production. Money is only as good as what exists to buy for it. It's NOT our employees that we exchange with, it's the BUSINESSES that exchange (trade). You see, without businesses, without production there is no consumption. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. 2 company example is a simple way to understand that it's NOT the so called 'middle class', it's NOT the consumers that drive the economy, and businesses are NOT abusing anybody, businesses create the economy and provide people with a higher standard of living than that of hunters / gatherers / fishers, businesses do everything for the economy before paying 1 cent in taxes. This is part of the reason why I am against all income related taxes (the other part being that it is immoral theft), I am against all income related taxes, because these are the most destructive taxes, which prevent business investment and prevent more businesses from being built and thus prevent (or reduce) standard of living for everybody. That is why my position is and always was (for many decades now) that collectivism of every type is absolutely immoral and economically destructive, and the profit motive is the most moral and constructive motive.
1
disinfect777 So tell me, who did you steal that computer from, that you are using to post here?
1
Aliquis Capitalism = private ownership and operation of property. What YOU suggest is theft, because you suggest that private property must be confiscated from private owners and distributed to people who have nothing to do with it. It's both economically illiterate and immoral.
1
HyrdaRancher No, monopolies are not created without gov't involvement. Temporary economies of scale are created and as long as they are the best providers of the lowest cost highest quality product, they will keep being that temporary economy of scale. Monopolies are created by the governments, you may want to read something about that, for example history of AT&T and the gov't destroying 3000 competing businesses to grant that monopoly. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Frae%2Fpdf%2Frae9_2_3.pdf&ei=FqSWUvLOEITMyQHmw4DQBg&usg=AFQjCNGL36rnJep6IrYTYdq6cqSYe20PDw&bvm=bv.57155469,d.aWc
1
apocalypseap you are still here, you are loving it and coming for the seconds.
1
Beelzeboogie "Ah so it's ok for businesses to manipulate the military might" - no, did I say that? Absolutely not. It is the collectivists that put the corrupt politicians in power that allow for that type of behaviour to happen. The mob is stupid basically, it acts AGAINST its own long term interests and its own long term interests is to keep the gov't out of businesses, out of money, out of taxing income, out of wealth redistribution, and to do that, the mob needs to ensure that the politicians that are elected are NOT elected because they promise corruption (theft, redistribution) but because they promise to KEEP the fundamental Constitutional values in place, which are - as little gov't as possible, just enough to prevent occupation by foreign violent states for example. As to your complaints that businesses did not do badly with the Nazis, it's exactly the same song. The Nazis came to power in a country, that allowed them (the collectivists) to take over. Of-course there is a difficult history that I can tell you all about, I spent plenty of time in Germany and actually cared enough to study the issue. The Keiser was not the worst thing that happened in the world, he was weak and was beaten, but what came after, what beat it, allowed for more collectivism to occur. It's a complex issue of destroying capitalist principles over time, destroying entire classes of bourgeois and creating the idea that collectivism and its discipline will save the country and the nation. Mix the earlier form of Marxism with the final understanding that an average German did not see any value in allowing for international style of Marxism and you get your nationalist democratic movement, which is what the mob actually rallied behind and gave a wide enough road for the nazis to march in. Once the nazis are in, the free market capitalism is out, but SOME people will make money in that system, even more than before, because they will cooperate with the regime. Are you blaming the people who manage to survive and thrive in that system or can you admit that the system should not even be allowed to exist in the first place, so collectivism allowed this, collectivism is the root cause of this evil, and funny how TYT's Ben (a jew) is all for collectivism.
1
Aliquis I don't know who these "absentee bosses" are, but all the people that I deal with, that run their businesses, are much more involved with their work than any of their employees.
1
apocalypseap You are again, mistaken. There is no place for "nice" and you should keep your comments about naivete to yourself. There is no place for nice, everything in business is just business. So exactly what is your complaint? You don't know, I'll tell you what it is - that some people are better than others in surviving in the system that is given to them. You don't see that the problem is that the system itself, the system of gov't POWER over the individuals, over businesses is allowed to exist, but that's the system you want - collectivism. You are complaining about the effects of collectivism in a pseudo-capitalist society upon the free market and you can't grasp it.
1
Look at all these replies to my comments, what a wonderful display of ignorance and collectivism from every side. Should anybody be surprised at the economic wasteland that the USA is becoming?
1
Dick Cheney there is no god.
1
apocalypseap Wrong, if the system was becoming more to my liking, I would have kept my business in the States. As is, I moved it out to Asia 4 years ago.
1
HyrdaRancher There shouldn't be any government passed laws that limit liability. Everything is up to debate. As to courts, they are supposed to be private in the free market, I imagine that people would stick with the courts that would respect contract law, otherwise you can't ever have contracts and thus business becomes impossible.
1
Sigmund Frued So you like private property ownership and operation but you can't understand that a central government ends up corrupting the system and thus destroying the freedoms that allow private property ownership and operation. You are not very consistent in your believes. No business is a 'leech on society' unless it is forced upon the market by the government. Nobody is a leech upon the society if members of the society deal with the business on voluntary basis. Great Depression was caused by central gov't, first ensuring that the Fed would print money to buy all the bad UK debt from France and then, after the inevitable asset bubble crash that was caused by that inflation, the gov't stepped in and stepped up the inflation (you can also call it QE) and used the fake money to buy real assets with the explicit goal of destroying them. So you are complaining about lack of morality of free market capitalism and you are against anarcho capitalism out of some misguided moral principles, yet you are closing your eyes to the immoral destruction of assets during the Great Depression by the gov't (like the programs designed to purchase and destroy food) during the times, when people were starving. That's an interesting moral stance to say the least. And of-course lastly you are calling for the bloodshed, which is completely in line with the other collectivists that have ever stepped a foot on this planet. They all and always called for a revolution and blood, supposedly "for the good of the mankind". You are the largest hypocrite, a murderous one, as I have already said many times even in this thread.
1
apocalypseap Why, one day I might.
1
1. There is no god, so please, "the pope?" What is that? 2. Some collectivist living high life of a powerful leader opened his mouth about the lesser than him people having to be robbed to rile up the large number of the people even lower on the income level. Good politics.
1
Sigmund Frued Yes, they were looking for a better way to govern and they were against the kind of tyranny that they saw King's rule as. If they saw even 10% of what is going on today with the government power, they would have started a revolution against the current system.
1
apocalypseap SOME corporations ARE ruling America today and that's the problem - the collectivists gave power to the gov't that it should have never had and power is for sale to somebody with tons of money. That's why the call to 'remove money from politics' is idiotic, the money will find a way through, just like the alcohol found its way through during the prohibition. It's not the money that is the problem, it's the power that it can buy that is the problem. Government shouldn't have that type of power over individuals to sell to anybody, then money would not be flowing.
1
disinfect777 What does it mean, everyone? There are approximately 5,000,000 businesses in USA, 99% of them don't have any representation in government. They probably should, but they can't get access.
1
disinfect777 I claim equal ownership of your liver. --- So I am building the products that didn't exist before I came up with the idea, I spent my time building these products, spent my savings that I already earned to do it, somehow you think everybody else has equal access to these products? Not until they pay the price that I set.
1
disinfect777 You are the dumbfuck, property starts with your own body, either you own it or you do not and I claim it and in your own words you do not own it, "everybody does".
1
disinfect777 you are the dumbfuck, certainly bodies can be owned by anybody who claims them, that's your position - there can be no private property, then there can be no private property of any kind. The private property that is body is something that is handed down to you by your parents, it exists as long as physically possible and as long as you take care of it. Private property that you accrue over course of your life also exists as long as it can physically and as long as you do the necessary work and maintenance, etc. I think that the collective can make a better use of your liver than you, individually can, and you agree to it by claiming that private property does not exist, so you should stop your individualistic egoism and do what is right and give up your liver for the good of the collective, you fucking hypocrite.
1
Beelzeboogie I am obviously for absolute property rights, and property rights start with your own body, so nobody can be a slave if everybody owns their own bodies. Nobody can take away your private property, since it is just extension of your body via the fact that without your effort that property wouldn't belong to you.
1
disinfect777 I did get out, I found a place with lower taxes and it's not a 'fee for living', it should be truly a payment for the absolute minimum thing that gov't should even exist for - military protection.
1
disinfect777 Nope, there shouldn't be such thing as welfare, it's predicated on violence of the state, robbing Peter to subsidise Paul, and there are many more Pauls out there, who act as a mob, corrupting the system by electing politicians that promise to corrupt it, good luck to you, dirtbag.
1
HyrdaRancher I disagree FUNDAMENTALLY that it is of any private person's business to do anything for anybody rather than for themselves. So I disagree fundamentally with your premise that a business owner "must provide" anything to an employee. My employees are important to me, but they are only here because I need to extend my own productivity and I do it by automation and by employing people, and so there is always competition between capital and labour and if you make labour too expensive for me with laws and taxes, I will find ways. I will move, I will buy more labour savings devices and hire less labour, I am not going to play by your nonsensical ideas that I am somehow responsible for other people's well being. My goal is to make as much money as possible by building the best mousetrap that I can build and by finding the most customers that I can in order to maximise my efficiency and return on the investment, nothing else. The good thing about it is that if the government is not involved, then people like me, acting in their own self interest create and grow the economy. By the way, you are blaming capitalism for the mistakes made by the collectivism, like the Great Depression, where the asset bubbles were created because of the gov't intervention in the money markets, printing US dollars (and don't start on the nonsense that the Fed is not really part of gov't) to buy bad UK debt from France. The free market responded by placing all that cash into something, that something being the agriculture stocks and the bubble was created. Just like the housing bubbles, just like the bond bubble of today, it is not at all the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of central government planning and collectivism, which tries to manipulate the markets and distorts them. Of-course then the market CORRECTED the mistakes of resource misallocation that were created by the gov't, the gov't responded even more stupidly, collectively and violently, by printing even more money and buying up even more assets (in many cases to DESTROY the assets to prevent the NECESSARY deflation). So the gov't created inflation, destroyed assets and turned the necessary recession into the unnecessary depression, which lasted up until the end of WWII, when gov't finally cut spending by 64% and taxes by 32% and then depression ended. As to your nonsense about gov't non-intervention in the years 1905 to 1933, it's just that -nonsense. US gov't created the IRS and the Federal reserve in 1913 and in 1917 the Congress gave power to the Fed to monetise USA Treasury debt, consequently and almost immediately inflating a huge bubble and causing a recession and a depression by 1920, and then Harding allowed massive devaluation by NOT intervening and the market corrected in less than 2 years the depression was over. In 1925 the USA gov't intervened more, this time to buy bad UK debt by printing USD, the market responded with an asset bubble and the inevitable bubble collapse caused the necessary recession, which would have also worked itself out quickly, but Hoover intervened violently and then FDR did so even more violently, causing the Great Depression. This is not what they will give you in your worthless history class in your public school, so I am not blaming you for ignorance here.
1