|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
Rather than a system we try to regulate into not being the predatory industry it is in it's very essence, we should just care for the least among us.
I completely understand, So get rid of it. Now whats the plan, govt loans, insured loans, no loans just welfare type systems. Taking away an avenue may open up others, but will they be better worse, More expensive, More inclusive, Easier to access, Equal. Or will they be the opposite of all the above?
This is to assume that they are as evil as they are portrayed and as stated They figured out all the way back in biblical days that payday lenders were despicable and shouldn't exist.
|
|
|
On June 13 2019 03:44 Taelshin wrote:Show nested quote +Rather than a system we try to regulate into not being the predatory industry it is in it's very essence, we should just care for the least among us. I completely understand, So get rid of it. Now whats the plan, govt loans, insured loans, no loans just welfare type systems. Taking away an avenue may open up others, but will they be better worse, More expensive, More inclusive, Easier to access, Equal. Or will they be the opposite of all the above? This is to assume that they are as evil as they are portrayed and as stated Show nested quote +They figured out all the way back in biblical days that payday lenders were despicable and shouldn't exist.
Socialism on the path to Communism.
There's nothing anyone could use these predatory loans for that shouldn't be the base minimum in a country with a per capita income upwards of $50k. That's more than enough to ensure everyone is fed, sheltered, clothed, healthcare, and has a modicum of independence and dignity.
No, I don't think anyone is so useless that their humanity should be negated and those basic needs (among surplus) are not met. No, I don't believe threatening people that resist the ongoing exploitation of capitalism with poverty/prison is an effective social strategy
|
|
|
On June 13 2019 06:16 JimmiC wrote:
And how do you manage the supply to make sure that everyone gets it fairly and evenly?
Markets, democratic worker control/ownership, and people learning how socialism works.
|
|
|
On June 13 2019 09:50 JimmiC wrote:
Can you provide an exanple of where its working? If not why not?
What is "working" to you? You think capitalism is "working" and it's plunging us head first into our potential extinction?
There's a lot of reasons we don't have exemplary samples of socialism, not the least of which being the wealthiest country in the world spending several times more money than the other major nations combined on a killing force to eliminate them when they pop up.
But Mondragon is probably one of the better examples. Amish people basically live a religiously based socialism as well and they are notably healthier (or as healthy) without modern medicine.
|
|
|
On June 13 2019 10:08 JimmiC wrote:
I think the political system in Norway is working pretty well. Something comparabke would be good.
Amish have some good and bad, womens rights, sexual assualt, not so good. Envitonmental pretty good since they dont consume much more than they need.
Is that your plan to do away with technology, choice, science, so on? More dramatic then I thought TBH.
Norway isn't globally scalable, this is common knowledge. It would take several earths worth of resources to do that.
As for the Amish, that's religion for you, but it is scalable.
No. Just some basic understanding of socialism would preclude such inane questions.
|
|
|
On June 13 2019 10:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2019 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2019 10:08 JimmiC wrote:
I think the political system in Norway is working pretty well. Something comparabke would be good.
Amish have some good and bad, womens rights, sexual assualt, not so good. Envitonmental pretty good since they dont consume much more than they need.
Is that your plan to do away with technology, choice, science, so on? More dramatic then I thought TBH. Norway isn't globally scalable, this is common knowledge. It would take several earths worth of resources to do that. As for the Amish, that's religion for you, but it is scalable. No. Just some basic understanding of socialism would preclude such inane questions. But I dont belive you are after socialism so I have to ask you questions to find put what it is your after. And amish are not good for the enviroment because they share, it is because they dont use technology. Scalable? How many billions are you killing off and what billions? Norway is way more scalable since it is already 10000 times bigger. And that political and cultural setting is far nore familiar so you also have people who might be willing to do it.
I don't think you know what socialism is, or at least haven't demonstrated even a rudimentary working knowledge, to the contrary your questions betray the curiosities of someone distinctly ignorant on what socialism is and definitively unqualified to assess whether it's one's pursuit.
As for scaling, you again seem to not understand the term. It's not about the cultural adoption, but the resources required to maintain.
Norway is categorically NOT globally scalable, while an Amish lifestyle definitively is.
This is the other reason I generally don't engage with you. Not only is your engagement not in pursuit of dialogue, it lacks a basic level of critical engagement to be interesting.
You just blurt things out, so much so your posts are often riddled with basic words misspelled and/or end up totally incoherent and built entirely on non sequiturs
|
|
|
On June 13 2019 10:43 JimmiC wrote:
Explain how the amish is definatly scalable? How are you going to feed all the people that currenlty exist in the world?
Amish communities have no significant problems feeding themselves. Unlike many wealthy countries, no one goes without basic sustenance.
|
Amish communities have noticably low density populations. It's religiously and socially intolerant. And they chuck out anybody who do not conform. That's the opposite of scalable. Amish communities only exist because they live under the protection of USA, which is decidedly not Amish. Can feed themselves is a very low bar to hurdle over. Humanity since humanity existed has always fed itself.
But hey, it's scalable right? You first GH. Go join the Amish. I don't expect to hear you back.
|
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions.
|
On June 14 2019 05:14 Wolfstan wrote:
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions.
That's not how us all living on a single planet works unfortunately. The socialists can't just enjoy their lifestyle while capitalists risk the habitability of the planet we all inhabit.
|
|
|
On June 14 2019 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 05:14 Wolfstan wrote:
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions. That's not how us all living on a single planet works unfortunately. The socialists can't just enjoy their lifestyle while capitalists risk the habitability of the planet we all inhabit.
I'm going to make a bold prediction that wealthy capitalist communities will be much more ecologically friendly in the near future than poorer socialist regions.
Democratic capitalist societies are so much preferable to live in.
|
On June 14 2019 07:22 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 05:14 Wolfstan wrote:
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions. That's not how us all living on a single planet works unfortunately. The socialists can't just enjoy their lifestyle while capitalists risk the habitability of the planet we all inhabit. I'm going to make a bold prediction that wealthy capitalist communities will be much more ecologically friendly in the near future than poorer socialist regions. Democratic capitalist societies are so much preferable to live in.
Your prediction doesn't match the science which clearly shows capitalists are leading us head first into a complete ecological disaster with no hope of avoiding it at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
