Capitalists (Little Upsilon)

If you're a capitalist just post a comment here on this page.

Pfffft hahahahaha I am not a capitalist...I am just laughing at how you are the only person who posted...besides me just now.

I am a Capitalist.

I AM A CAPITALIST ;)

Now the world is starting to see who capitalists really are 'Blood Sucking Leaches' people will soon unravel this web of deceit that these capitalists have been spinning us. And they will dethrone this monetary system disguised as democracy called capitalism that these Blood Suckers have been imposing on us through the manipulation of our weakest instincts: desire and fear.

This capitalistic way of life, void from responsibility, honour and morals due to the fact that its just a monetary system and not a way of life, will be soon put into its rightful place.

Capitalism will work together with Communism (community) socialism (society) and religion (morality) creating the situation where these Blood Suckers will become out casts and classed as social deviants.

Then this monetary system called capitalism will only be able to influence the economics of life when it is clear that it will have no ne

Weird. Wasn't it Capitalists who made Western Society?

I have never known a capitalist to be a Nationality :s

lol :P it is to some people

Nix, I was once taught an important rule: Don't trust a man who has no interest in money. Nonsense, you might be thinking. Not at all. Read your own post, such a man who has no interest in money wants control. He wants to dictate the way others live their lives. He wants to class those who refuse to conform as deviants. Maybe take a good long look at yourself.

Capitalism isn't a monetary system at all. (Maybe you meant something else?) It's an ideology (better than a nationality) that promotes economic and political freedom. In the simplest terms, you have no right to your fellow man's life, liberty or property. There is little deceit in the ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Monetary/economic. Whats the difference?

And now we have this economic system dictating to democracy. Two european leaders have been removed by the market rulers (capitalists) already as elections take too long. Something very wrong in that.

They are calling it 'the european autumn' spin off from the 'the arab spring'. But instead of the native people and outside influences changing governments its the Capitalists (right wingers).

I'm interested in what money I need to survive. Anything wrong with that?

I never said there was anything wrong with being interested in money. There isn't. I was referencing the fact that you're clearly promoting an authoritarian government.

While I don't know any details, I have strong doubts that "two European leaders have been removed by the market rulers." I wouldn't be surprised if it was merely containing about politicians you don't like.

complaining*

Ok soldier now you have had some time to catch up with whats happening what say you now?

You do know that Italy's new leader is a unelected economist. And that out of all the members of the new parliament there is not one politician. How can you have a parliament without a politician?
How can you have democracy without a voice from the people?

Now thats a 'authoritarian government'

Would you not say soldier?

Anything to stay in control

I'm not a political junkie. I have no idea how Italy's government works. Is the leader you're referencing even an elected position? Or was he appointed under the Italian constitutional rules? The real question here hinges on how Italy's government works, and not only do I feel disinclined to research the new Italian leader, but I also feel disinclined to research the Italian constitution. In any case, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you'd like to link evidence that the new Italian leader was illegally appointed, feel free to do so. I will read, but not research.

As for the lack of politicians, I don't believe that's a bad thing. No need to have career politicians in elected positions. This is definitely not a requirement of democratic government. This is also not an authoritarian government by any stretch of the imagination.

Unless, of course, the Italian government isn't a democrac

The issue with Italy's new government as well as Greece's is that they have essentially been imposed by the European Union in an effort to put up a firewall between their dire financial positions and the rest of the Euro.

The reason they have had to do this, is partly because of the irresponsible lending of the banking sector (although Greece's shoddy income tax system had a large part to play).

The UK's austerity budget and those of the US and other European countries have also been caused indirectly by irresponsible lending by the banks.

This is going to take a bit of explaining, but stick with me.

Let's look back at how we got in our current mess. We partially deregulated the banking sector allowing banks to use their profitable retail businesses to act as collateral for riskier investment banking (repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act started this off in the US). Complicated and poorly u

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

the current governments of Greece and Italy were established to meet the demands of the free market to prevent them and the banks from going bankrupt.<!-/Quote-!>

Why not just "the current governments of Greece and Italy were established to prevent them and the banks from going bankrupt." Why blame the free market? A free market would let stuff go bankrupt, and let the chips fall where they may. This seems to be in direct contradiction to how free markets operate.

Whoops! Yep, that is a bit of a contradiction. I suppose I should have said something like '...were established to meet the demands of rich business owners who didn't want to lose their fortunes.'

Otherwise, I stand by my post. Those with a vested interest in the Free Market might be its biggest proponents until their investments start to look vulnerable. Suddenly, demand for intervention grows and taxpayers end up picking up the bill.

EDIT: The post is mostly me ranting (not angrily though, I save that for communists, haha) so feel free to ignore unless you have time to waste.

Sorry, I haven't checked the forums in a while. I'm a supporter of having a free market whether it is a bear or bull market. I think it would be safe for you to assume that I'd oppose intervention no matter the climate.

In either case, I should mention that not all "deregulation" is consistent with a free market ideology. In theory, any regulation should be eliminated according to a pro-free-market ideology, but the problem with "deregulation" as spoken by politicians is that some of it is legitimate laws designed to punish those who commit fraud. Note that determining in all cases which is which would require a bit more knowledge than I possess. I'd leave it to economists and politicians to sort out. My main point is that economic liberalism doesn't im

Regarding the EU now the EURO. The Euro was created in another attempt by the Germans to rule Europe. They failed in their bid through military means only 70 years ago remember and now they are attempting it through financial means. It's designed to create political change through financial dictatorship.

As for Freedom........To have freedom comes responsibility and man has shown incapable of being responsible when faced with power and wealth . So to ensure the responsibility of having freedom is being undertaken you need a independent governing body. But to have a governing body means you are no longer free.

The free market is there to create wealth power and profit for those who can put themselves in the position to dictate it.
The problem now is, these free market leaders(owners) are now dictating to and in some cases owning governments. This will end up with fiscal consolidation of the world and the rise of the ne

I'm sure you're overreacting regarding the Germans. To an extent, it makes sense as a defensive measure. If other countries using the Euro as currency fail, then Germany's currency fails. They don't really want that so they do what they must to prevent their own economy from collapsing. If anything, they're probably regretting joining the EU and feeling like they must bailout the failing countries in order to protect their own currency and economy.

In either case, my argument is that it is not free market leaders who are dictating and owning governments. The situation in the EU was my previous example in that it was the considerations of national governments to dictate policies regarding other national governments that shared their currency. If anything, recent events will likely make other national governments wary of linking their currency in any way resembling that of the Euro.

Regardless, any concessions that a gove

You seem to think that political and economical power can be seperated. Its no where near that simple. Dynamic power as you label it can and is used to force the population to 'spend' its resources where business wants. This is mainly in the form of taxes which are taken and used by the financial arm of the government, the treasury, and allocated as they see fit. Unfortuneately this does not often concur with where the tax payer would have the resources allocated. And many of the choices are influenced by lobbies and decided behind doors between dynamic power and hegemonic power.
And the motivation? nothing to do with oppression but good old fashioned greed, human desire to be more comfortable than his neighbour.

I like your arguements soldier but they do remind me of the debating society at my college when we all wore rose tinted glasses.

Soldier....Did you know that the Illuminati (New World Order some say) was started in GERMANY by a JEW in 1776 on the 1st of May (MAYDAY)?

@Soldier 'I should mention that not all "deregulation" is consistent with a free market ideology.[...] some of it is legitimate laws designed to punish those who commit fraud[...] this should not be mistaken for saying that regulations designed to prevent market failure should be enacted'

Generally, I agree. Regulations and laws like the Glass-Steagall Act in the US and similar pre-2000 financial legislation in the UK were not designed to combat fraud. Their purpose was to separate risky investment banking from being funded by the large deposits in retail banks - in other words, this regulation was intended to reduce the likelihood of market bubbles forming by limiting the amount of cash available to investment banks.

It basically enshrined in law the principle that you shouldn't lend MORE than you can afford to lose.

De-regulating banking to allow the investment arm of retail bank

Yeah sure, blame the Jews. Fucking Nazi. If you haven't noticed, no one gives a crap about the Illuminati. They're a thing of the past. A conspiracy theory.