[onlooker]

So then it is okay, for Trump to call Hispanics and/or migrants all thugs and rapists and what not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[mmasters]

So then it is okay, for Trump to call Hispanics and/or migrants all thugs and rapists and what not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

They are illegal aliens. By calling them "migrants" you are discriminating against the people that come here legally.

[onlooker]

So then it is okay, for Trump to call Hispanics and/or migrants all thugs and rapists and what not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

They are illegal aliens. By calling them "migrants" you are discriminating against the people that come here legally.

Well, an illegal alien is not necessarily a rapist or thug no?

[Cog]

Except trump never said that all Hispanics are criminals. If you are going to lie about something onlooker at least make it belivable.

[careinke]

So then it is okay, for Trump to call Hispanics and/or migrants all thugs and rapists and what not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I thought he said there were probably even some good people in the group. So he didn't say ALL (after all, he is not a democrat). Still, they are ALL illegals.

[KaiserJeep]

Trump was speaking about MS-13, the violent Hispanic gang.

[radon1]

This is what capitalism leads to:

The cost of labor continues to be important, despite all the robotization, and maybe thanks to it - fifty Asian (and there are even more poor African!) workers who receive pennies, may well be more effective than an ultra-modern robot. And everything will happen again: after all, Mexico was a pioneer in accepting the outgoing American industry for a long time, then it gave way to China and other Asian countries, and then began to win back its position. In fact, all this is rather sad for developing countries, in fact, this means that having reached a certain GDP per capita as a share of the same indicator for the US (it is a nominal GDP, without PPP), it can not depart from it, only [oscillate around it].

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

[onlooker]

Simply put. Capitalism is the rule of money and its propagation. So the rabid competition tends to leave ever more losers as the Big fish eat the little fish.
Exploitation and corruption is preferred methods of operation as they allow profit making in any and all conceivable ways and the least expense for the highest return. What rules and contracts they're are, generally favor the owners of capital. So you can say it is the system that has functioned the best and is the most natural to humans. What you cannot say is it is a equitable, fair or just system. And its application worldwide has involved genocide, enslavement , exploitation and oppression. And finally it has been so successful in what it does that it is the process of eradicating the favorable conditions for life such as ours on this planet

And so, People attribute our current diabolical predicament as a species to overpopulation, or to the discovery of Fossil Fuels or even the advent of Agriculture. Well, I postulate that those are just symptoms of the real underlying cause. And that cause is the imperial mindset, the competitive conquering mindset. In our infancy as a species that mindset served us well to use our abilities and creativity to perservere against difficult obstacles. However, sometime in the 1700's or so, this mindset began to be counterproductive. It is this restless mindset which sought ever more ways to expand and solidify progress along the lines of growth and power and technology. And so we searched for and discovered Fossil fuels and ways of prolonging our lives and allowing more babies to survive. And so overpopulation began to become a problem. But, our intrepid foray into ever more cunning and innovative technology and methods to expand and conquer and control is the underlying reason, we have ended up with such a huge population and such a monstruous world industrial civilization. We were motivated to create this world and that was folly on a grand scale.

[evilgenius]

Well, Cog, do you want to rule like the PRI in Mexico? It's tough to rule properly, for the people, when you don't accept feedback. You don't have to take it at its face. You can figure out what it means, in your context. For instance, the inclination towards Socialism could be interpreted as the other side of the same coin that backing Trump is all about, that Americans are doing less well and something radical has to be done about it in order to restore prosperity. Trump may be going in an anti-global direction, while the Democrats are being tempted by changing up the flow of money under government, radically.

An example I was just thinking of concerning the attitude you've displayed is like a teenage boy who gets into a fight at some public place because, "He looked at me." Then he discovers that his mother put him there to meet his cousin, who he got into a fight with. It can be a dark and foreboding world. The Republicans and Democrats are still natural allies when it comes to defending the country. Go too far, and that is what is in danger. Maybe the country does need to change radically, but the change required isn't what either party is espousing, and the way through can only be found through compromise?

I'm not calling you any names. This is about asking you to explain yourself more often, instead of resorting to that. It's easy to get upset when someone calls you a name. It's harder to go past that, and use reason instead. Often, you do simply stand pat upon very short assertions about things. You don't explain yourself. Most of the time that's great. That's why object oriented programming was invented, so that the explanations don't have to be brought out every time, but referred to. The only problem is that, sometimes, explanations are required. And the shorthand cannot be effective if it only refers to your low estimation of someone else. Your position becomes lost, and it is the arguments within your position that need to come forward when compromise takes place.

[KaiserJeep]

Simply put. Capitalism is the rule of money and its propagation. So the rabid competition tends to leave ever more losers as the Big fish eat the little fish.
Exploitation and corruption is preferred methods of operation as they allow profit making in any and all conceivable ways and the least expense for the highest return. What rules and contracts they're are, generally favor the owners of capital. So you can say it is the system that has functioned the best and is the most natural to humans. What you cannot say is it is a equitable, fair or just system. And its application worldwide has involved genocide, enslavement , exploitation and oppression. And finally it has been so successful in what it does that it is the process of eradicating the favorable conditions for life such as ours on this planet

And so, People attribute our current diabolical predicament as a species to overpopulation, or to the discovery of Fossil Fuels or even the advent of Agriculture. Well, I postulate that those are just symptoms of the real underlying cause. And that cause is the imperial mindset, the competitive conquering mindset. In our infancy as a species that mindset served us well to use our abilities and creativity to perservere against difficult obstacles. However, sometime in the 1700's or so, this mindset began to be counterproductive. It is this restless mindset which sought ever more ways to expand and solidify progress along the lines of growth and power and technology. And so we searched for and discovered Fossil fuels and ways of prolonging our lives and allowing more babies to survive. And so overpopulation began to become a problem. But, our intrepid foray into ever more cunning and innovative technology and methods to expand and conquer and control is the underlying reason, we have ended up with such a huge population and such a monstruous world industrial civilization. We were motivated to create this world and that was folly on a grand scale.

Unclear thinking, needless verbosity, and a clear violation of Occam's Razor.

"Capitalism" is just a label that idiot's apply to natural primate behaviors, in order to have something to hate that is seperate from themselves.

When apes band together in a troop, they compete with one another. They compete for more and better food, more and better mates, the best tree with the most secure and comfortable branches to nest in. These same behaviors, elaborated by and hyper-extended by human intelligence, are the reason that our spcies alone dominates the Earth. Money is simply how we keep score in the game of Life.

We are the most successful species that has yet evolved on this planet. Now we have two paths. One choice would be to keep to the surface of this single planet, eventually marinating in rice paddies smelling of human waste, as our numbers grow to 10/20/30 billions, and we replace the biodiversity that yet persists with the monoculture of humans and crops and food animals. The alternative is to leave the planet and grow our numbers into the trillions in space habitats.

I know that some of you believe that the second path is impossible. That is simply evolution in action. All ape troops eventually outgrow their territory, and schism into those that march off to find new territories, and those that remain behind to die in the foul smells of prior and present generations. So make your choice in your own mind, and you need never tell anyone.

Socialism, in fact all variations upon Karl Marx's ignorant writings, is the pablum fed to losers.

IMHO, we will follow both paths. The Earth will become a foul smelling, overcrowded ape house full of squabling primates. Those who enter space and live there will continue human evolution.

(Sorry for the duplicate post, I got one of those SQL errors.)

[onlooker]

https://debates.economist.com/debate/ca ... te=summary
Is capitalism rigged in favor of elites?

[KaiserJeep]

https://debates.economist.com/debate/capitalism?state=summary
Is capitalism rigged in favor of elites?

The answer would be NO. There is just so much stuff, and always, more people. As time passes, your "fair share" (like that phrase has meaning) grows ever smaller. Then there are the con artists, who victimise the weak-minded by scape goating a meaningless label for ape behaviors, aka "Capitalism". Those so victimized would rather complain about their lot in life than do anything to improve it. Eternal losers they are.

[radon1]

"Capitalism" is just a label that idiot's apply to natural primate behaviors

Capitalism and natural behaviors are different things, though they closely interact.

Socialism, in fact all variations upon Karl Marx's ignorant writings, is the pablum fed to losers.

How is Stalin a loser, and how the status that he achieved, the ultimate goal of a natural primate behavior, could be possible without socialism? For him, socialism was a very practical concept, not some ideological distraction.

[KaiserJeep]

Your historical education is sadly lacking. Socialism is a mild form of Marxism, fairly and often Democraticly imposed, after a lifetime of Socialist indoctrination in public schools. What Stalin imposed by force after the Russian Revolution was Authoritarian and involuntary, including a Communist party elite and involuntary labor camps used to exterminate millions of people.

All forms of Marxism are based upon Marx's flawed writings. He was an intelligent man but incapable of understanding the primate nature of mankind which ultimately arose in the mid 20th Century based on the works of Anthropology which in turn arose from the theories of Charles Darwin who was a contemporary of Marx.

All philosophical musings prior to the Mid 20th Century are flawed because they are not based upon Anthropology, instead they arise from the earlier "devinely inspired" origin theory of mankind. This includes everything that Marx ever wrote, and renders his work usefull only to understand the historical academics of his time. Note that certain academics in the late 20th century also rejected Anthropology, and their writings are equally flawed.

[onlooker]

Radon, that is rubbish what Kaiser is saying. Marx studied and analyzed in depth economic doctrines not musing in philosophy. He broke down the essential components of economic processes. He understood the excesses that Capitalism inevitably lead to. This is not about overall human sociological and anthropological patterns and influences but simply the economic character of human societies. So Capitalism understood as an economic system within the larger human society.
It is reductionist to simply say Capitalism is JUST the amalgam of certain primate traits. Capitalism is intimately related with materialistic imperial like cultures and their creed and ethos. Highlighted by seeking greater power and wealth consistent with the proclivities and prerogatives of those at the top of what were inevitably hierarchical societies and responding to their decisions. See this curt concise primer on Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... t/ch03.htm

[radon1]

What Stalin imposed

was socialism, as close to its purest form as it gets. As a result, he gained influence unachievable in any other way. Plus, incidentally, tens if not hundreds of millions of people radically improved their lifestyles, and this was also unachievable in any other way in those circumstances. Whether this was authoritarian is kind of debatable, as arguably he did what the majority of people wanted at that time, but a sizeable minority objected so fiercely that they were at each other throats. In addition, the country was overpopulated and at an advanced stage of a malthusian cycle, and some sort of bloodshed was definitely a risk that crystallised. These are glaring facts but they are always overlooked as a matter of political expediency.

So, socialism can be well utilised within the framework of primal behaviours or whatnot.

[onlooker]

Radon, that is rubbish what Kaiser is saying. Marx studied and analyzed in depth economic doctrines not musing in philosophy. He broke down the essential components of economic processes. He understood the excesses that Capitalism inevitably lead to. This is not about overall human sociological and anthropological patterns and influences but simply the economic character of human societies. So Capitalism understood as an economic system within the larger human society.
It is reductionist to simply say Capitalism is JUST the amalgam of certain primate traits. Capitalism is intimately related with materialistic imperial like cultures and their creed and ethos. Highlighted by seeking greater power and wealth consistent with the proclivities and prerogatives of those at the top of what were inevitably hierarchical societies and responding to their decisions. See this curt concise primer on Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... t/ch03.htm

Nice summary

As always thank you comrade. Bet you Cog will be on soon with our distressing commie talk

[KaiserJeep]

Then, there's the practicality argument. 47 variations of Marxism attempted, 42 clear and total failures, and 5 countries that are either failing or evolving into other forms of government (China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba).

175+ Capitalist countries at present, some more successful than others. Another hundred or so in History.

The things that Marxism clearly does worse than Capitalism include wealth distribution, public infrastructure, defense, public health, and education.

[KaiserJeep]

Radon, that is rubbish what Kaiser is saying. Marx studied and analyzed in depth economic doctrines not musing in philosophy. He broke down the essential components of economic processes. He understood the excesses that Capitalism inevitably lead to. This is not about overall human sociological and anthropological patterns and influences but simply the economic character of human societies. So Capitalism understood as an economic system within the larger human society.
It is reductionist to simply say Capitalism is JUST the amalgam of certain primate traits. Capitalism is intimately related with materialistic imperial like cultures and their creed and ethos. Highlighted by seeking greater power and wealth consistent with the proclivities and prerogatives of those at the top of what were inevitably hierarchical societies and responding to their decisions. See this curt concise primer on Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... t/ch03.htm

We are not talking about Marx's economic analyses, the most famous being Kapital, Volume 1. Although those are also nonsense as they are cast solely in the context of class struggles. What we are talking about - the document that describes a Marxist form of economy imposed by authortarian means, is the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, first published in 1848 in his native German. Commonly re-named The Communist Manifesto when translated into English, it is possibly the most infamous document written in the 19th Century, and has been responsible for numerous genocides, untold misery, and profound human suffering. Within this document he defines Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. Those are more or less in the same order as Marx's regard for them, his ultimate ideal is full-on Communism, which he describes as the most advanced and efficient form of Socialism.

The Communist Manifesto is all unadulterated balderdash.