America this week, what the hell?

[Thefishguy77]

I know that society must evolve and it will away from wild capitalism model we have right now.

It's crony capitalism imho.

The limited times I have hear wild capitalism it has been more like a rebranding of crony capitalism.

Are you using wild as the same as crony? Just for my understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Victor_inox]

It's crony capitalism imho.

The limited times I have hear wild capitalism it has been more like a rebranding of crony capitalism.

Are you using wild as the same as crony? Just for my understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, wild lead to corrupted or crony. wild as root of the problem.
Lobbyism as root of the problem. Outlaw Lobbyism! Vote for Gary Johnson!

 

[Thefishguy77]

Not really, wild lead to corrupted or crony. wild as root of the problem.
Lobbyism as root of the problem. Outlaw Lobbyism! Vote for Gary Johnson!

Gotcha. And I would vote for him if I thought he had a chance in hell of winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thefishguy77]

Great letter to Colin Kaepernick.
http://conservativetribune.com/cop-shot-minority-sends-kaepernick/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunslinger-13]

I know that society must evolve and it will away from wild capitalism model we have right now.

We don't have nor have we had true "capitalism"" in quite a long time. As Mr Fish posted- we have Crony Capitalism, which is choking the nation to death.

What do you propose as a system other than capitalism that will work better?

We've seen the world try them all and true capitalism with limited government intervention has been shown to be hands down far and away the best system.

Perfect, heck no, nothing is, but it's the best system there is in existence.

What do you believe is better and why?

What "evolution" do you speak of?

We aren't "evolving" currently, we are devolving...

 

[Gunslinger-13]

Gotcha. And I would vote for him if I thought he had a chance in hell of winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could've gotten behind him except for his stance on immigration, after hearing him go on a tirade about it, not to mention he and Mr. Weld's thoughts on who would be a good SCOTUS appointment- he CANNOT win my vote any longer after those things came to light, even if he was doing well after the debates as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Johnson is just a liberal in Libertarians clothing. Nothing I want in the white house.

Edited to add link to video of Johnson on Immigration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs


^Johnson get's seriously delusional and nutty in that video. Reporter held his ground and called him out.

 

[Victor_inox]

We don't have nor have we had true "capitalism"" in quite a long time. As Mr Fish posted- we have Crony Capitalism, which is choking the nation to death.

What do you propose as a system other than capitalism that will work better?

We've seen the world try them all and true capitalism with limited government intervention has been shown to be hands down far and away the best system.

Perfect, heck no, nothing is, but it's the best system there is in existence.

What do you believe is better and why?

What "evolution" do you speak of?

We aren't "evolving" currently, we are devolving...

System we have now clearly doesn`t work. I honestly don`t care how it`s called now, Crony or corporate capitalism or whatever...
What system works best? Google happiest countries and see for yourself.

 

[Thefishguy77]

System we have now clearly doesn`t work. I honestly don`t care how it`s called now, Crony or corporate capitalism or whatever...

What system works best? Google happiest countries and see for yourself.

You will find in those countries that they are small population countries. That is why that form of government works. I have friends and family that live in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The population in the cities and towns are small so everybody is held accountable if they don't contribute. They can actually be shunned in some cases if they are just takers.

There is absolutely no way a socialist based economy could work in a country with a 300 million person population. It always fails in large countries. True capitalism is what seems to work best in large countries.

Name one country with a population over 200 million that any form of socialism has worked out well. Any form( communism, Marxism, fascism, and other variants). Brazil? China? Russia? India?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Victor_inox]

You will find in those countries that they are small population countries. That is why that form of government works. I have friends and family that live in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The population in the cities and towns are small so everybody is held accountable if they don't contribute. They can actually be shunned in some cases if they are just takers.

There is absolutely no way a socialist based economy could work in a country with a 300 million person population. It always fails in large countries. True capitalism is what seems to work best in large countries.

Name one country with a population over 200 million that any form of socialism has worked out well. Any form( communism, Marxism, fascism, and other variants). Brazil? China? Russia? India?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have 50 relatively small states,I don't see a problem you described.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[Thefishguy77]

We have 50 relatively small states,I don't see a problem you described.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

So your saying we split up the union in to 50 individual states and Let them run themselves? Effectively abolishing the federal government? I don't believe that's what you mean so could you please explain how that would work?

Edit:

Or do you mean we go back to the origination of the country. Individual states united together for commerce and security while maintaining a minimum presence of a federal government. Free to make their own governing decision as long as they abide by the constitution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

You will find in those countries that they are small population countries. That is why that form of government works. I have friends and family that live in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The population in the cities and towns are small so everybody is held accountable if they don't contribute. They can actually be shunned in some cases if they are just takers.

There is absolutely no way a socialist based economy could work in a country with a 300 million person population. It always fails in large countries. True capitalism is what seems to work best in large countries.

Name one country with a population over 200 million that any form of socialism has worked out well. Any form( communism, Marxism, fascism, and other variants). Brazil? China? Russia? India?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. But another large factor is also having strong economies. Combine a small population, small landmass and a strong economy and a system like socialism can work quite well.

I do think if you isolated certain regions, you could see success here. But those areas are few and far between.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Agreed. But another large factor is also having strong economies. Combine a small population, small landmass and a strong economy and a system like socialism can work quite well.



I do think if you isolated certain regions, you could see success here. But those areas are few and far between.

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I was more giving the 10,000' view. If we did this in America we would have a reckoning very quick. That's as for everybody. What would happen to California when all those states who sell them water decide they don't want to anymore or up the price. Or when the states who have vast quantities of oil decide they are going to drill/frack it and sell it on the open market. Or coal natural gas ect. It in effect would create 50 small countries and only a few could have a strong enough economy to provide for its citizens.

Having a large socialist style government is a fine idea but I don't believe it could ever work in a country the size of ours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[-JD-]

Well lets not forget that all of those countries are capitalist-socialist hybrids, including America.

America is not purely capitalist, nor is denmark purely socialist. Those 'socialist' countries you mentioned simply lean slightly more towards socialism (particularly in areas that you might not want to be ruled by profitability, like education and healthcare).

 

[Victor_inox]

Or do you mean we go back to the origination of the country. Individual states united together for commerce and security while maintaining a minimum presence of a federal government. Free to make their own governing decision as long as they abide by the constitution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I`m not sociologist, free market is great when everyone playing fair game.
When was last time that game was fair?

 

[Hepar]

Having a large socialist style government is a fine idea but I don't believe it could ever work in a country the size of ours.

Agreed. But I do think there are certain things that are not only possible, but in my opinion should be a necessity. I personally don't believe any American citizen should ever have to worry about their basic healthcare. And I think it's completely possible to achieve that. Does that mean I'm for the current system that aims at that? Not at all.

 

[Victor_inox]

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I was more giving the 10,000' view. If we did this in America we would have a reckoning very quick. That's as for everybody. What would happen to California when all those states who sell them water decide they don't want to anymore or up the price. Or when the states who have vast quantities of oil decide they are going to drill/frack it and sell it on the open market. Or coal natural gas ect. It in effect would create 50 small countries and only a few could have a strong enough economy to provide for its citizens.

Having a large socialist style government is a fine idea but I don't believe it could ever work in a country the size of ours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good example is USSR, that was doing quite well if not for cold war when it was forced to spend a lot at expense of social programs, food supply,etc. Western economies allied to protect their way of living.
Thanks to Churchill.
Find or create an enemy, then you can ask for unlimited financing to pay Military Industrial complex- true owners of this once great country.

 

[ThorInc]

Only way that could take hold and be successful is with a single payer system and that will not be allowed to succeed as insurance companies would stand to lose billions....it's not perfect but it would work. How it would affect the highest levels of care in the US, I don't know but money pretty well buys everything in today's world so the very wealthy would likely not be affected.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Trail Wonka]

I like what Senator Paul has to say RE .gov healthcare.



Healthcare is not a right that should be paid for by the state, states Congressman Ron Paul



“You have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty and you have a right to keep what you earn in a free country. But you do not have a right to stuff. You do not have the right to services or things, like a house or a job, because in order to get that the government would have to take that from somebody else,” explained the Congressman.



“The most you can expect in a free society is for government to make an attempt at protecting rights, not to try to re-distribute wealth. If you do that – all people will lose their rights,” he asserted.



This is fact almost no one understands. They are a bunch of children who see Government as Santa Clause.

I find this train of thought quite interesting. You must realize that the current health insurance industry is redistribution of wealth. People pay into it, and those that need it are paid out of it. And on top of that, the insurance companies are a middle man skimming off the top. Government is not the big bad boogie man, it is we the people, until it is hijacked by corporate greed, stealing from you and me. You are being robbed in more ways than one and don't even see it.


Sent using my thumbs!

 

[Thefishguy77]

Only way that could take hold and be successful is with a single payer system and that will not be allowed to succeed as insurance companies would stand to lose billions....it's not perfect but it would work. How it would affect the highest levels of care in the US, I don't know but money pretty well buys everything in today's world so the very wealthy would likely not be affected.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

Insurance companies are already loosing tons of money due to the ACA. There are many companies that are deciding to not sell insurance in a state here and there. This will over time take the number of insurance companies down to a few and then we will have an oligopoly. That is bad news for all except those companies that survive it b


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThorInc]

The US & the insurance industry is already an oligarchy and it has been this way for decades..........this is exactly why government no longer or to a greater extent represent the average voter less than ever before in it's history.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds - Washington Times