First, let me say RIP to Mark Duggans.

Let me also say that if one keeps living in a way which has him always on the cop's "radar", it usually will not end well. Being KNOWN to sell drugs and/or be involved in a gang will put you on the radar of cops. I don't understand how folks can keep playing with fire and want to cry foul for the one who kept playing with fire.

Quote: (08-09-2011 03:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The state is as ignorant as you are when it comes to spending money efficiently.

I would contend that the state is in a better position to judge what is better for the nation's financial future as a whole than ordinary citizens are, given the amount of information available to them.

The only thing that could prevent that is corruption, which is the main source of state mismanagement(pork-barrel spending, rampant deregulation, faulty contracts, etc).

Quote:Quote:

If money is spent wisely by the state, it's effects are multiplied and the citizens prosper greatly.
If the money is wasted, the negative effects are multiplied.

Which means that if we concentrate on mitigating corruption (the principal source of waste), we have a system closer to the ideal. Correct?

Instead of trying to create a free-for-all and minimize the state, why not attempt to make the state better? You admit here that this would create prosperity.

Quote:Quote:

Compare that to a capitalist economy, where individual citizens are in control of their money. Citizen A wastes his cash, no one else is hurt. Citizen B profits greatly, and at least a few others will also share in his success.

Or Citizen B gets together with citizens C and D and hoards most of the wealth, leaving nothing for citizens E through Z. He lives in a capitalist society with little regulation, so there is not much preventing him from doing this by any means necessary, and nobody else is able to accumulate enough wealth or power to stop him.

Trickle down economics have not proven to work for anyone but a few at the top, as the current state of the US shows. These people, like most, are self-interested. When you make them richer, they enrich themselves first and foremost. They have no reason to care about anyone else.

I do not understand why people would expect the outcome to be any different in a capitalist system, whereby the inherent goal is to encourage self-advancement and capitalization. They have very little incentive to really spread the wealth to others and promote general social welfare, but all of the incentive to exploit others (ex. financial deregulation, sub-prime loans) and get richer.

Quote:Quote:

And, historically, state-manipulated countries always manage to fuck it up. It's so easy to make one little mistake, and bam! the economy explodes 2008 style. Wiemar Germany, USSR, Chile 1970, China 1958, (there are hundreds of other examples).

There are hundreds of examples of the free market causing the same kind of implosion, not the least of which is our own 2008 crisis.

Quote:Quote:

Issue #2: The main reason why Nordic countries like Sweeden prosper as socialist countries is because they do not have to pay for a military.

This is just not true. In terms of per-capita military expenditures, Nordic nations rank quite highly. Norway is seventh in the world, Denmark is 15th, and Sweden is 18th. They all spend more per-capita than China and Russia, and plenty of other "socialist" countries top the list (France and England in the top 10).

These states are paying for militaries, and they are paying quite dearly.

Quote:Quote:

Right now America is going bankrupt because they are trying to do both a military and welfare state.

The size of the welfare state in the US is not at all comparable to that of the USSR or to those in Western Europe.

Quote:Quote:

Issue #3: Socialist economies turn women into horrible creatures. Roosh's experience in Denmark is also common to most countries with a welfare state.

I don't buy it. Denmark is not the only socialist state in the world. Its perceived lack of attractive women in the eyes of one PUA cannot be used as an indictment upon an entire system of governance.

Quote:Quote:

Issue #4: Capitalist economies are defined by low taxation and few regulations. No country in the world meets this criteria. America has one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Not in the developed world.

Quote:Quote:

Hong Kong is an example of a capitalist city, however, and it is one of the most powerful cities on the planet.

Hong Kong is part of a communist country.

Quote:Quote:

Finally, a factual aside: America has not been less regulated since the 1970's, it has gotten 2x as bad. Ask any small business owner who's been around more than twenty years and you'll probably learn how bad our government has become.

Factual? This is entirely untrue. Their is far less in the way of financial regulation today than there was in the 1970's, and taxes are far lower as well.

Our government has less control now than it has at almost any other time in the last 100 years due to aggressive deregulation. There is no debating this.

Quote: (08-08-2011 07:51 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

It has got to be a cop killing an innocent.

We've got a few here in Oakland last year when Oscar Grant was killed. A lot of stores got looted, and the police arrested some looters - most of whom, surprisingly, was out of town.

Quote: (08-09-2011 05:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Issue #3: Socialist economies turn women into horrible creatures. Roosh's experience in Denmark is also common to most countries with a welfare state.

I don't buy it. Denmark is not the only socialist state in the world. Its perceived lack of attractive women in the eyes of one PUA cannot be used as an indictment upon an entire system of governance.

Moreover, American women, on average--as we can all agree--are some of the fattest, least feminine, sluttiest, entitled, self-absorbed, phone-addicted, copy-cat, dumbest bitches on the planet. They grew up and exist in a decidedly capitalist economy. Even at its most "socialist" (during the New Deal) the United States never approximated a socialist state.

In other words, I think capitalism makes for way worse bitches than socialism, on average. Think consumerist, gold-digging, trend-following bitches versus girls that grew up thinking about the good of the whole and on doing things besides spending money.

Why do you think some of sweetest, most attractive girls come the Eastern bloc--the former socialist republics? Socialist bitches are downright hot, homie.

Capitalist bitches, on the other hand, look like the nickel pieces in the "What Do You Guys Consider a 5?" thread.

I don't remember ever saying socialism causes problems in women. I focus on feminism, which happens to be strong in America, Britain, and Scandinavian countries.

Quote: (08-09-2011 09:29 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

A socialized economy stifles growth, which is the reason all developed countries with their welfare states are suffering from rampant poverty. Socialized economies always fail in the long run.

I know very few socialized economies; US is definitely not.

Quote:Quote:

Imagine if some local thug boss took 60% of your take home check, and said "This is for your own good." Meanwhile, you are unclear why he needs the cash and you are too poor to do anything with your life.

It depends.
If he took my money to build roads, maintain hospitals and feed those who cannot help themselves, I'd be ok with that.
But if he took my money to invade Iraq and Afganistan, and give it to those who feel entitled to it because they believe in Jesus, I definitely would not be ok with that.

So, at the end, it is still the good old "I don't want to pay for your welfare/I don't want to pay for your wars" debate.

Tuth -

"Socialist bitches are downright hot, homie."

Ha. Funniest thing I have heard all day.

That could be a game changing catch phrase.

Oh shit, I've dug myself into a deep hole on this thread. Just to let you know, Athlone, I've still got some other threads on my "to post" list with you.

Quote: (08-09-2011 05:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Quote: (08-09-2011 03:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The state is as ignorant as you are when it comes to spending money efficiently.

I would contend that the state is in a better position to judge what is better for the nation's financial future as a whole than ordinary citizens are, given the amount of information available to them.

You're confusing the sum with the parts. The state might be better to decide for the nation, but not for each citizen. And I would always give priority to citizens over the state, because the nation should exist for the citizen and not vice-versa. This isn't Sparta.

Quote:Quote:

The only thing that could prevent that is corruption, which is the main source of state mismanagement(pork-barrel spending, rampant deregulation, faulty contracts, etc).

Corruption is a fact of human nature. The founding fathers created the USA to be a government that is limited in nature in order to limit the amount of harm a corrupt politician could do. They saw the government as being more capable of doing harm than good.

One of the world's greatest books is entirely on the subject of creating citizens who would be entirely devoted to the state, and it concludes in the final chapters that such a state is impossible.

The fact that corruption can never be removed from governance is enough to kill the idea of socialism. But there are still other significant problems.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

If money is spent wisely by the state, it's effects are multiplied and the citizens prosper greatly.
If the money is wasted, the negative effects are multiplied.

Which means that if we concentrate on mitigating corruption (the principal source of waste), we have a system closer to the ideal. Correct?

Instead of trying to create a free-for-all and minimize the state, why not attempt to make the state better? You admit here that this would create prosperity.

I admit it is impossible for two reasons:

1. Corruption is impossible to remove. Someday my blog will explain this in greater detail as I will cover the subjects within The Republic.

2. The state, even without corruption, would still be prone to error. A large organization can be completely wrong while one man can be completely right. When the state errs, as it must due to human ignorance, there will be far more suffering than need be.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Compare that to a capitalist economy, where individual citizens are in control of their money. Citizen A wastes his cash, no one else is hurt. Citizen B profits greatly, and at least a few others will also share in his success.

Or Citizen B gets together with citizens C and D and hoards most of the wealth, leaving nothing for citizens E through Z. He lives in a capitalist society with little regulation, so there is not much preventing him from doing this by any means necessary, and nobody else is able to accumulate enough wealth or power to stop him.

A capitalist system still has laws. No one can do whatever he wants. On the contrary, in socialist systems politics pick winners and losers all the time, and then there is really nothing anyone can do about it.

Quote:Quote:

Trickle down economics have not proven to work for anyone but a few at the top, as the current state of the US shows. These people, like most, are self-interested. When you make them richer, they enrich themselves first and foremost. They have no reason to care about anyone else.

This is a gross over generalization. Some rich men care about others, some do not. It depends on their upbringing.

Also, trickle down economics is just an empty buzz word. Make concrete criticisms not empty buzz-word attacks.

Quote:Quote:

I do not understand why people would expect the outcome to be any different in a capitalist system, whereby the inherent goal is to encourage self-advancement and capitalization. They have very little incentive to really spread the wealth to others and promote general social welfare, but all of the incentive to exploit others (ex. financial deregulation, sub-prime loans) and get richer.

This criticism can be applied to any political-economic system. This is a criticism of human nature.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

And, historically, state-manipulated countries always manage to fuck it up. It's so easy to make one little mistake, and bam! the economy explodes 2008 style. Wiemar Germany, USSR, Chile 1970, China 1958, (there are hundreds of other examples).

There are hundreds of examples of the free market causing the same kind of implosion, not the least of which is our own 2008 crisis.

The 2008 crisis was entirely manufactured by the Federal Government promising to backstop all home loans made by banks, which started with the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the 1970's. Because the system was socialist, the banks did not fear any loans backfiring on them as they knew if the home owners were to default the government would foot the bill, and not the banks. Because the system was socialist, the losses were applied collectively and we printed trillions to pay off the bad loans.

The 2008 crisis is a textbook example of unintended consequences from politicians using socialist principles in a good-willed manner. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions.) Otherwise known as, human error.

I challenge you to find any kind of economic disaster close to the ones produced by socialist systems. (I'm NOT saying that the USA is socialist, but that the 2008 was operating under socialist rules.)

You can check out the mass-starvation disasters in Soviet Russia or in the PRC.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Issue #2: The main reason why Nordic countries like Sweeden prosper as socialist countries is because they do not have to pay for a military.

This is just not true. In terms of per-capita military expenditures, Nordic nations rank quite highly. Norway is seventh in the world, Denmark is 15th, and Sweden is 18th. They all spend more per-capita than China and Russia, and plenty of other "socialist" countries top the list (France and England in the top 10).

These states are paying for militaries, and they are paying quite dearly.

The highest ranked one, Norway, only pays half of what the average US citizen pays. And given that Norway's population is under 5 million, which is less than 2% of America's population, it isn't hard to see why they need to pay so much per citizen just to keep pace with America.

But I admit it was wrong for me to say they pay "no military", when I really just meant they were free-riding off American largess. Without America, these places would have been invaded by the USSR over 50 years ago.

I suppose without America today, they would do fine for at least a few more decades but I hope no serious terrorist threats were to arise against them.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Right now America is going bankrupt because they are trying to do both a military and welfare state.

The size of the welfare state in the US is not at all comparable to that of the USSR or to those in Western Europe.

Hmm... straight from the liberal paradise of Columbia,

"Myth: The United States has an unusually small welfare state.

Fact: Welfare state programs are quite large in the United States—transferring close to one third of the country’s income from one to another part of the population. When measuring the size and impact of a welfare state, it is critical to not limit the analysis to traditional notions of welfare like cash assistance but to include a broader set of social welfare transfers such as education, employer-provided benefits, and all in-kind benefits. "

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Issue #3: Socialist economies turn women into horrible creatures. Roosh's experience in Denmark is also common to most countries with a welfare state.

I don't buy it. Denmark is not the only socialist state in the world. Its perceived lack of attractive women in the eyes of one PUA cannot be used as an indictment upon an entire system of governance.

Welfare states become substitute husbands for women. Both Roissy and many MRA writers have remarked on this.

Side note for Roosh:

Quote:Quote:

I don't remember ever saying socialism causes problems in women. I focus on feminism, which happens to be strong in America, Britain, and Scandinavian countries.

Have you ever seen a third-world country with feminism? I think a welfare state is a necessary condition for feminism.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Issue #4: Capitalist economies are defined by low taxation and few regulations. No country in the world meets this criteria. America has one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Not in the developed world.

Measuring taxes as a percent of GDP is meaningless. In absolute terms, America is #1. Could it be that if our tax rates were raised excessively on corporations they would suddenly start to have their margins squeezed enough so that they cannot generate such large returns?

Moreover raising taxes on corporations just means they will raise prices on their goods.

The corporation is a red-herring; the real problem is that small businesses are taxed and regulated into oblivion, so there is no competition for corporations. If the USA were to become more capitalist, corporations would own less of the wealth.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Hong Kong is an example of a capitalist city, however, and it is one of the most powerful cities on the planet.

Hong Kong is part of a communist country.

Hong Kong, after America (America was very capitalist until the turn of the 20th century, and has since grown into something else), is the most successful capitalist experiment in history. It was just a small fishing village on the coast of China, occupied by the British, that, absent of major taxes or regulations, grew into a major metropolis.

It's sovereignty has since been taken over by China, but the Chinese give Hong Kong a great deal of autonomy, which persists to this day.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Finally, a factual aside: America has not been less regulated since the 1970's, it has gotten 2x as bad. Ask any small business owner who's been around more than twenty years and you'll probably learn how bad our government has become.

Factual? This is entirely untrue. Their is far less in the way of financial regulation today than there was in the 1970's, and taxes are far lower as well.

Our government has less control now than it has at almost any other time in the last 100 years due to aggressive deregulation. There is no debating this.

haha... too bad people in the industry have plenty to disagree with you on that.

To quote from the above link, "I can't think of any other industry with more regulation than the financial one."

I have to agree with Schiff, have you ever opened an account on e-trade or scottrade? The list of rules regarding day-trading, margin holds, puts/calls etc. is fucking mind-boggling.


And, even without considering the financial industry, there are literally thousands of other over-regulated industries in America. Covering them all is a waste of time, but one example is the car industry; ever notice that only car-dealerships are the ones who can buy cars wholesale at auctions?

They pay 50% of the price you do for the same car on a car lot. Yet the average man cannot go to these auctions because there are 100 regulations in place prohibiting him from accessing these cars.

My father has access to a car dealer's license, amazingly enough, but he's not a big car dealer owner so the state of New Hampshire has repeatedly tried to shut him down through threats and fines.

He has lost thousands this year paying off lawyers to defend himself the state, but hey, according to you, we need more regulation! Yeah, that the ticket!

Side note:


If anyone wants to buy cars at huge discounts, I can put you in contact with my father. Before the state started to crackdown on his business, he was selling cars worth over 200K to Russians (god knows how they got their $$$). His business is located in the state of NH, which means no sales tax. Plus he buys from auctions, which already have a huge discount.

(it's taken him 6 months get clear from the oppressive state. he's lost almost all of extra capital in the meantime. GO USA!)

Quote: (08-09-2011 06:30 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (08-09-2011 05:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Issue #3: Socialist economies turn women into horrible creatures. Roosh's experience in Denmark is also common to most countries with a welfare state.

I don't buy it. Denmark is not the only socialist state in the world. Its perceived lack of attractive women in the eyes of one PUA cannot be used as an indictment upon an entire system of governance.

Moreover, American women, on average--as we can all agree--are some of the fattest, least feminine, sluttiest, entitled, self-absorbed, phone-addicted, copy-cat, dumbest bitches on the planet. They grew up and exist in a decidedly capitalist economy. Even at its most "socialist" (during the New Deal) the United States never approximated a socialist state.

I don't want to argue over nomenclature, so let's just be clear. When I say socialist, I'm really referring to that which is state controlled.

I contend that the USA has more socialist policies today than it did during the New Deal. The USA is more socialist today than it ever has been.

Quote:Quote:

In other words, I think capitalism makes for way worse bitches than socialism, on average. Think consumerist, gold-digging, trend-following bitches versus girls that grew up thinking about the good of the whole and on doing things besides spending money.

America, back in the 18th century, were reputed to have the highest quality women in the world. No joke:

Quote:Quote:

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.

America had no welfare safety net then. Women who were knocked up had to fend for themselves. Women who disrespected their husbands could find themselves without a house or food.

Quote:Quote:

Why do you think some of sweetest, most attractive girls come the Eastern bloc--the former socialist republics? Socialist bitches are downright hot, homie.

These women grew up poor and despondent, and are themselves high quality women. It's not a surprise to me that poverty breeds virtue.

These socialist bitches didn't have much a saftey net, despite the promises that came from their government, because they countries were completely bankrupt after the 1980's and had nothing to offer to its citizens.

Quote:Quote:

Capitalist bitches, on the other hand, look like the nickel pieces in the "What Do You Guys Consider a 5?" thread.

You're looking at our state-grown bitches. There's nothing capitalistic about them.

Capitalistic bitches would be Hong Kong bitches, who probably are pretty hot. Not fat at all.

Quote: (08-09-2011 04:36 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (08-09-2011 11:28 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

The guy opened fire on the cops.

He did not open fire on the police. The ballistics test has already confirmed that there was no evidence that Mark Duggan fired a weapon at a cop.

Yeah he was a low life, that's not being contested, but the UK isn't supposed to be a society where cops act as judge, jury and executioner for anyone they don't like.

No, much better to take the sort of soft approach that sees 3 days of riots because no one fears the cops any more. The whole reason why this has escalated is because the gangs KNOW the police are soft and the judicial system has become a joke.

Do you think they would be pulling this shit if the Brits handled crowds the same way Syria handles theirs? There are people who have some sort of justification in protest and rioting. They face the possibility of death yet they still hit the streets. These degenerates are after Reeboks, not social change. Its ironic that the people who should be getting shot go home with designer jeans, while those who should be running rampant are running into tanks instead.

The guy was a lowlife piece of shit dealing crack. He was a known crack dealer. Im a little more inclined to the take the cops word for it.

On a lighter note:

Conservative women vs liberal women.

Quote: (08-09-2011 08:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Oh shit, I've dug myself into a deep hole on this thread. Just to let you know, Athlone, I've still got some other threads on my "to post" list with you.

Fun.

Quote:Quote:

You're confusing the sum with the parts. The state might be better to decide for the nation, but not for each citizen. And I would always give priority to citizens over the state, because the nation should exist for the citizen and not vice-versa. This isn't Sparta.

This is where we disagree.

I believe the sum should be given slightly more weight than the parts. Then again, I can understand why such a viewpoint would not be popular in America. This is a pretty individualistic culture.

Quote:Quote:

Corruption is a fact of human nature.
....

....The fact that corruption can never be removed from governance is enough to kill the idea of socialism. But there are still other significant problems.

I don't believe this either. This is not a zero sum game.

Corruption will always exist. Government will never be entirely flawless.

Then again, neither will the free market. The fact that neither can be perfect does not imply that neither is useful.

Quote:Quote:

I admit it is impossible for two reasons:

1. Corruption is impossible to remove.

No system is flawless.

But if corruption could be minimized, you would have a lot to gain.

Quote:Quote:

2. The state, even without corruption, would still be prone to error. A large organization can be completely wrong while one man can be completely right. When the state errs, as it must due to human ignorance, there will be far more suffering than need be.

1. A large organization cannot be completely right?
2. You cite human ignorance as a potential stumbling block.
Human greed is no less threatening a vice.

Quote:Quote:

A capitalist system still has laws. No one can do whatever he wants.

If they're good capitalists then, in theory, they can do quite a bit. If regulation is minimized then what is really stopping them?

Quote:Quote:

On the contrary, in socialist systems politics pick winners and losers all the time, and then there is really nothing anyone can do about it.

When I talk about socialism, I'm not talking about gulags and commissars. There is still a free market.

Quote:Quote:

This is a gross over generalization. Some rich men care about others, some do not. It depends on their upbringing.

They're raised here(that is, the USA) in a capitalist system based on individualism and self interest, where mottos like "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" are considered near gospel in many cases.
How egalitarian do you think these guys are really going to be?

Quote:Quote:

Also, trickle down economics is just an empty buzz word. Make concrete criticisms not empty buzz-word attacks.

The model you described fits in with that of the trickle-down theory.

Quote:Quote:

This criticism can be applied to any political-economic system. This is a criticism of human nature.

Exactly.

One system tries to mitigate the inevitable effects of human nature by regulating things and creating safety nets.

The other is a free-for-all, with no safety nets and little regulation.

Quote:Quote:

The 2008 crisis was entirely manufactured by the Federal Government promising to backstop all home loans made by banks, which started with the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the 1970's.

The 2008 crisis was entirely manufactured by de-regulatory policies of the late 90's that allowed banks to start handing out crappier loans en masse with relatively low oversight.

Quote:Quote:

Because the system was socialist, the banks did not fear any loans backfiring on them as they knew if the home owners were to default the government would foot the bill, and not the banks.

The banks should not have been handing out those loans in the first place.

They did so because it was extremely profitable to begin doing so, and because regulatory barriers that would have made it harder for them to move forward were destroyed.

It is plausible that the banks may have expected more support in the event of defaults and that this influenced their actions, but that is not the root cause of the problem. The root cause stems from the fact that they were allowed to hand out those crappy loans in the first place. They should not have been allowed to even deliver bad loans in such large numbers, but de-regulation made it easy for them to do.

Quote:Quote:

I challenge you to find any kind of economic disaster close to the ones produced by socialist systems. (I'm NOT saying that the USA is socialist, but that the 2008 was operating under socialist rules.)

The 2008 crisis.

That was a capitalist crisis stemming from de-regulation, not a socialist one.

Quote:Quote:

You can check out the mass-starvation disasters in Soviet Russia or in the PRC.

I won't bring them into this discussion because they are irrelevant. When I mention "socialism", I do not speak of communism.

Quote:Quote:

The highest ranked one, Norway, only pays half of what the average US citizen pays.

Which is still much more than the rest of the world, and much more than the west's most commonly cited threats(China and Russia).

Quote:Quote:

I suppose without America today, they would do fine for at least a few more decades but I hope no serious terrorist threats were to arise against them.

Who says that greater spending is necessary to combat terrorism, or that it necessarily improves one's success rate?

One could contend that it really hasn't helped the US all that much in Afghanistan.

Quote:Quote:



Hmm... straight from the liberal paradise of Columbia,

"Myth: The United States has an unusually small welfare state.

Fact: Welfare state programs are quite large in the United States—transferring close to one third of the country’s income from one to another part of the population. When measuring the size and impact of a welfare state, it is critical to not limit the analysis to traditional notions of welfare like cash assistance but to include a broader set of social welfare transfers such as education, employer-provided benefits, and all in-kind benefits. "

And my point still stands.

The size of the welfare state in the US is not at all comparable to that of the USSR or to those in Western Europe.

Quote:Quote:

Welfare states become substitute husbands for women. Both Roissy and many MRA writers have remarked on this.

Doesn't say anything about the quality of the women. I prefer Swedes over the average American almost any day, and I think most guys here would probably agree.
If you're talking about marriage then this is especially the case-American women of the present generation make notoriously poor wives.

Quote:Quote:

In absolute terms, America is #1.

This is the richest country in the world in absolute terms-that isn't surprising.

Quote:Quote:

Could it be that if our tax rates were raised excessively on corporations they would suddenly start to have their margins squeezed enough so that they cannot generate such large returns?

Moreover raising taxes on corporations just means they will raise prices on their goods.

The corporation is a red-herring; the real problem is that small businesses are taxed and regulated into oblivion, so there is no competition for corporations. If the USA were to become more capitalist, corporations would own less of the wealth.

Corporate taxes don't necessarily need to go up.

Quote:Quote:

Hong Kong, after America (America was very capitalist until the turn of the 20th century, and has since grown into something else), is the most successful capitalist experiment in history. It was just a small fishing village on the coast of China, occupied by the British, that, absent of major taxes or regulations, grew into a major metropolis.

It's sovereignty has since been taken over by China, but the Chinese give Hong Kong a great deal of autonomy, which persists to this day.

It is a capitalist city in a communist (and, before that, a socialist) nation.

I would hesitate to draw to many conclusions on that basis.

Quote:Quote:


haha... too bad people in the industry have plenty to disagree with you on that.

Plenty of them agree with me too (the IMF, for one).

Quote:Quote:

To quote from the above link, "I can't think of any other industry with more regulation than the financial one."

How much does he know about regulation in the rest of the developed world?
Is it higher here or in Sweden?
We keep saying that it is extensive here, but how extensive is it as compared to the rest of the world? That's the answer we should be looking for.

Quote:Quote:

And, even without considering the financial industry, there are literally thousands of other over-regulated industries in America. Covering them all is a waste of time, but one example is the car industry; ever notice that only car-dealerships are the ones who can buy cars wholesale at auctions?

They pay 50% of the price you do for the same car on a car lot. Yet the average man cannot go to these auctions because there are 100 regulations in place prohibiting him from accessing these cars.

My father has access to a car dealer's license, amazingly enough, but he's not a big car dealer owner so the state of New Hampshire has repeatedly tried to shut him down through threats and fines.

He has lost thousands this year paying off lawyers to defend himself the state, but hey, according to you, we need more regulation! Yeah, that the ticket!

As a car enthusiast, I am familiar with the way the dealership system works here. You need a license to get access to most major auctions, and getting a license isn't always cut and dry. There are a lot of rules, many of which are hidden.

That being said, nobody contended that this was a zero sum game. The auto industry may not require additional regulation at all.
But quite a few other major industries that matter(the financial industry prime among them) might.

Riots are all unique to one another – to terrain – how long they go – and what government response will follow. The Detroit riots – (there were 2 separate riots in 1943 and 1967) can’t be used as a guide for a rust belt City riot in year 2011 or predict what will go on now. As the United States has never had an out and out ‘food riot’ wrought by starving, but otherwise, law abiding people – there is no way to predict how one will turn violent.

One common element is that the biggest powder keg is set off my something small and stupid – Detroit burned for 3 days because whites and blacks picnicking on Belle Isle in the Detroit river started mouthing off to one another – in 1967 it was because the cops tried to shut down an illegal house bar that was holding a party for some black servicemen just home from Vietnam – when Newark burned in the 1960’s – that riot started when a rumor floated around the projects that a popular black cab driver had been beaten to death by the cops after a routine traffic stop (they did slap him around but he was not killed)

You can’t have a rust belt riot because there are no people left in Detroit – I’ve been there twice the last 4 years – all over Highland Park, Corktown, and the rest of South Detroit. There just isn’t enough left to loot or steal and not enough people. They are all gone. Same thing in East Buffalo, Toledo, Cleveland, Rochester, etc. There could be a week-long riot in South Detroit and no one would notice.

In New York City – given the Courts, the UN, the embassies, and gov’t buildings in Manhattan and the fact that Manhattan can be shut down by closing the bridges and tunnels – you won’t get a large scale LA type riot in Manhattan – there are too many Law enforcement, NYPD, NSA, BATF, FBI, US Marshalls, Secret Service, and quasi law enforcement – retired cops, FDNY, EMT, etc. – that’s 60k armed men (at least) that can be called into New York City and they have the armories and aircraft to put down any riot. Aside from a few blocks in North Manhattan – you won’t get a riot in NYC proper. Riots would be in the black areas in central Brooklyn and in Hispanic and black parts of the Bronx – the cops will not go in and ‘put the riot down’ so long as it stays confined to those areas –

There is a kind of ‘rule of 72 hours’ where people simply have to go home and sleep after running around for 72 hours. You can’t keep up that energy burn without crashing – you saw this during the Rodney King riot where the cops waited almost 3 days before trying to put the riot down. In Manhattan, given the high value buildings in it – no riot will be allowed to get started. You may get a large scale ‘brawl’ but if the fires start – it will be over in an hour.
For working class people – or those that get stuck in Brooklyn and the Bronx when something like that goes down – you better have a gun.

I would bet full blown riots will begin in cities all over California – probably Oakland before LA. Not enough cops and a much wider Mexican gang element. You’ll see them then in Florida, St. Louis, and Texas.

Overall – and Gerald Celente talks about this all the time with respect to Europe – you have kids in their 20’s with college degrees in worthlessness, debt, and no prospects for a future and 25% effective unemployment. Even if its just burning and looting for kicks - they are ‘gonna have at it’. A Parisian skinhead put it best to me while I was sitting in a bar on the Rue Mouffetard ‘there is nothing more dangerous in your neighborhood than the bored kids club.’

As far as why people would riot in England – England is a basket-case and the country is broke – even more so than the United States –Jim Rodgers and some other investment folks have said the only thing that saved England the last 30 years was the oil deposits in the North Sea that they pumped – England is now left to foster its economy by granting citizenship to every Middle Eastern and Russian billionaire who expresses interest in buying some palatial home in London and settling there - for part of the year.

About 20 years ago – England had gun laws like the United States. You could get everything including FN-FAL’s and handguns – do you think it was mere accident 15 years ago that just about everything was banned and the common law right of self defense and to use deadly physical force was abrogated by statute – the English common man has the legal status of farm pig – As I am part Irish – I would normally snicker at England’s demise - its just that Ireland is not far behind England.

Quote: (08-09-2011 11:55 PM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

About 20 years ago – England had gun laws like the United States. You could get everything including FN-FAL’s and handguns – do you think it was mere accident 15 years ago that just about everything was banned and the common law right of self defense and to use deadly physical force was abrogated by statute – the English common man has the legal status of farm pig – As I am part Irish – I would normally snicker at England’s demise - its just that Ireland is not far behind England.

How come I didn't see any of these guns and how come the bobbies weren't packing then?
Not doubting, I am just curious as to who actually had these guns..

This guy gets it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/columnis...tings.html

Quote: (08-09-2011 06:33 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I don't remember ever saying socialism causes problems in women. I focus on feminism, which happens to be strong in America, Britain, and Scandinavian countries.

It took me months on this board to finally understand what the heck this talk was about and it wasn't until recently that I could understand the distinction.

The kind of 'feminism' that people here are finding unattractive about American women has very little to do with equal rights which is the focus of 'European' style feminism. The American kind is little but a club for women to hit men over the head with when they are not behaving in accordance to a very subjective 'acceptable' manner.

For instance Scandi women are perfectly ok with paying for themselves in order to maintain their independence. The same expectation on American women would mostly be met with a grunt.

Quote: (08-09-2011 09:13 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

On a lighter note:

Conservative women vs liberal women.

<some pics>

Throw Ann Coulter in there on the conservative side though and the entire field is evened out.

This is fun stuff!

I need to get in on this thread!

(let me go read through the rest of the pages)

While we are on the topic of welfare, socialism, and capitalism I got a plan to cut Welfare spending by 80% (ie govt housing, food stamps, unemployment, ect) that isnt in-humane! haha

I dont think anyone should have to foot the bill for perfectly fit (physically & mentally) people indefinitely.

Only way in which I can come up with that is humane is this. (its pretty drastic lol)

1) The govt would have to develop SELF SUSTAINING communities on reservations or something. Train and equip people to live off the land. How to build houses & huts, how to farm and grow crops, how to hunt & fish ect. Pretty much eliminating the massive money spent on govt housing & welfare, but at the same time providing people everything they need to live self sustaining lives until they can find work.

2) Refine the welfare system. IE Setting time limits for which one can use welfare, unemployment, and govt housing. Develop transition programs for the above actions. People get laid off from work, and in that case they need govt assistance to hold them over until the find work. People become disaibled and would need assistance. Thats fine. But with the way things are now people severely ABUSE the system. Hell ive been abusing unemployment for the past month or soo. Stuff like that should not be allowed to happen. Gotta to have stricter more regulated welfare systems in place.


That would be one hell of over-haul of a system. lol

Anyone have a better method for cutting welfare substantially?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/lea...34811.html

Oh what a surprise they shot an un-armed man.

@Moma - British police were never armed until the las decade or so - even during the IRA days. - Why you did not see the presence of guns in England is that it enver had a gun culture the way that the United States does - or Germany does with all its shooting clubs.

The frist act -

"Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.[27] This confined semi-automatic and pump-action centre fire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, short shotguns that had magazines, and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles to the Prohibited category.[28]"

- This banned all semi-auto military pattern rifle from England, Scotland and Wales. Prior to 1988 you could own them - after 1988 you had to surrender them for destruction or render them permenantly inoperable -

The second shoe to drop -

""Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership,""

Sons and grandons turned in their father's German lugers that had been captured in battle as far back as WW1.

I just dont understand the logic of outlawing guns for people with no criminal record with the premise of obtaining a permit and registered their gun.

Bad guys will find ways to get firearms. No matter what gun laws you imposed.

It's only putting innocent people at a disadvantage.

I had a discussion with an Austrian girl in Costa Rica and she claimed she wouldnt shoot a man that broke into her house and tried to kill her.

I can understand someone wanting strict laws ect but to say you wouldnt use a gun to save ur life is absurd.

Needless to say I was shocked bc it was the first time I had a gun or societal debate with european....

Quote: (08-10-2011 08:47 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

I just dont understand the logic of outlawing guns for people with no criminal record with the premise of obtaining a permit and registered their gun.

Bad guys will find ways to get firearms. No matter what gun laws you imposed.

It's only putting innocent people at a disadvantage.

I had a discussion with an Austrian girl in Costa Rica and she claimed she wouldnt shoot a man that broke into her house and tried to kill her.

I can understand someone wanting strict laws ect but to say you wouldnt use a gun to save ur life is absurd.

Needless to say I was shocked bc it was the first time I had a gun or societal debate with european....

Would she stab him instead? They should outlaw guns. They are outlawed in the UK. If they are allowed, then they will be more accessible making shooting deaths much more easier.
And a person without a criminal record may have shooting tendencies..so they shoot someone and get a record..so they lose future rights to bear arms..but the person they shot is dead.
If it's outlawed, then you will have less casual occurences of shooting crimes.

Quote:Quote:

Would she stab him instead? They should outlaw guns. They are outlawed in the UK. If they are allowed, then they will be more accessible making shooting deaths much more easier.
And a person without a criminal record may have shooting tendencies..so they shoot someone and get a record..so they lose future rights to bear arms..but the person they shot is dead.
If it's outlawed, then you will have less casual occurences of shooting crimes.

Casual occurrences of shooting crimes? Most shootings are not casual imo.

Your point has some validity. There will be less gun offenses but that doesnt / won't change these facts.

1) Bad people can & will obtain guns no matter what gun laws are in place.

2) Being able to protect / defend yourself is in my opinion a BASIC life necessity that should be afforded to all law-abiding citizens.

3) Some evil people may not have a criminal record and could obtain a gun legally, but you can't condemn people on if's and maybes. Once someone abuses their freedoms and commits a violent crime they should be put away and dealt with.

I dont know about you but I would feel alot safer in the USA than the UK.

I would prob be dead if I lived in the UK. When I was 18 I encountered some crazed thug lunatics due to road rage and was blocked in and this dude and his friend rushed my car. Thank god I had a handgun in my vehicle which quickly made them quickly change their minds and retreat.

I havent encountered a home invasion yet, thank god and hope I dont. But best believe if I do I will have something for the mother fukers.

At the end of the day its all about being afforded the right to protect yourself and your family.

Outlawing guns is putting good law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage and higher risk.

>Being able to protect / defend yourself is in my opinion a BASIC life necessity that should be afforded to all law-abiding citizens.

Philosophers call this an inalienable right. Governments can write laws that on paper take this away, because governments write bad laws all the time. But by definition, any attempt to remove a person's ability to protect and defend themselves is a bad law that violates Natural Law, a set of laws believed to be so universal and basic that they supersede any government.

Quote: (08-11-2011 12:55 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

>Being able to protect / defend yourself is in my opinion a BASIC life necessity that should be afforded to all law-abiding citizens.

Philosophers call this an inalienable right. Governments can write laws that on paper take this away, because governments write bad laws all the time. But by definition, any attempt to remove a person's ability to protect and defend themselves is a bad law that violates Natural Law, a set of laws believed to be so universal and basic that they supersede any government.

Interesting.

I dont ever recall hearing of this before. Natural Law and Inalienable Rights.

I def believe in those things.

Thanks.

You have given me something interesting to research on a boring day. haha