• May day, Anti-Capitalist protest clash with police force in Montreal. Canada
    143 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47648196]My opinion is that true capitalism died when the anti trust laws were established. Before that you had the big 3 titans Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan monopolizing the industries and making huge profits by slashing more and more of their workers income. Rockefeller even ended up as the richest person in the history of the united states, having such a wealth that it accounted for more than 1.5% of the national economy. [/QUOTE] I'm pro-capitalism but I think trusts are an enemy of a free state, democratic state.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47648266]I'm pro-capitalism but I think trusts are an enemy of a free state, democratic state.[/QUOTE] I don't think he meant it as a good thing... unless he thinks the slashing of workers wages was good
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47648186]Vietnam? (Correct me if I'm wrong) I just find it hard to believe that 'there's never been communism'.[/QUOTE] There hasn't been communism because communism requires post-scarcity, which is impossible. Closest we've had is tribalism such as with indigenous Australians before European colonisation, and faux-socialist states such as the Soviet Union before Stalin and Venezuela.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47648272]There hasn't been communism because communism requires post-scarcity, [B]which is impossible[/B]. Closest we've had is tribalism such as with indigenous Australians before European colonisation, and faux-socialist states such as the Soviet Union before Stalin and Venezuela.[/QUOTE] why's that?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47648266]I'm pro-capitalism but I think trusts are an enemy of a free state, democratic state.[/QUOTE] I am standing very in the middle. Capitalism is a very good system when done properly. I think the best economy would be a fair mix between the socialism and Capitalism. The companies should pay an higher amount of taxes than the citizens and give back that money in services. Free school. Healthcare, medication, etc. Very similar to the actual system. Just a bit improved. Encouraging industries to invest socially like in the roads or school etc. to help the societies instead of directly paying taxes. Plus. What is the point to be billionaire? What can you do with a couple of billions dollars that you can't do with a few millions? ( except buying ridiculously huge mansion ) The top 1% richest people should follow the example of Bill Gates. where he Give billions to charities and organisation throughout the world to help fighting disease and improve the life of people a in third world countries
[QUOTE=pac0master;47648129]The idea is the same. It's true that Canada has a very mixed economy. ( Free school, Free healthcare, Minimum welfare income ) etc. I think the strike is just to let pass an idea to other people who have to deal without the aid from the government. The U.S is an example of extreme capitalism sometime. These people just want the government to act against pure captialism. Taxing the rich banks and companies instead of milking the poors[/QUOTE] The US economy is extremely mixed. It hasn't been 'extreme capitalism' since that led to the Great Depression.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47648266]I'm pro-capitalism but I think trusts are an enemy of a free state, democratic state.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about something different from what you had quoted? Impact was going on about the anti-cartel laws that the U.S. had implemented. What's wrong with trusts? My employer matches 10% of my pay and puts it in a unit trust where it is then invested. By the time I retire, after sixty years in the workforce, I'd have money equivalent to several hundred thousand of today's dollars waiting for me in that trust.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47648324]The US economy is extremely mixed. It hasn't been 'extreme capitalism' since that led to the Great Depression.[/QUOTE] Yeah well it's true that the Great depression was a big lesson to the U.S Fortunately, the World War saved the economy. It might not be extreme but it's still quite brutal by time.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47648284]why's that?[/QUOTE] Because we only have finite means to meet infinite wants. You can't have infinite means.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47648284]why's that?[/QUOTE] There's a limited amount of resources and a larger amount of people. On top of that the amount of people is growing exponentially, which means there's never enough to go around in order for people to both live comfortably and have enough means to innovate new ideas. A Post-Scarcity society would require infinite amounts of energy and resources in the form of a perpetual motion machine or completely free energy, food and material resources for everyone.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47648340]Because we only have finite means to meet [B]infinite wants[/B]. You can't have infinite means.[/QUOTE] wat
I don't understand... What do they think is wrong with Canada, exactly? In what would a communist revolution benefit Canada? Maybe i shouldn't try to find logic in a communist's head, but it makes me legitimately curious.
[QUOTE=Zyler;47648345]There's a limited amount of resources and a larger amount of people. On top of that the amount of people is growing exponentially, which means there's never enough to go around in order for people to both live comfortably and have enough means to innovate new ideas. A Post-Scarcity society would require infinite amounts of energy and resources in the form of a perpetual motion machine or completely free energy for everyone.[/QUOTE] well this brings up a lot of things like population growth and what its causes are/ will it continue as well as how much there REALLY is to go around.
[QUOTE=Zyler;47648345]There's a limited amount of resources and a larger amount of people. On top of that the amount of people is growing exponentially, which means there's never enough to go around in order for people to both live comfortably and have enough means to innovate new ideas. A Post-Scarcity society would require infinite amounts of energy and resources in the form of a perpetual motion machine or completely free energy, food and material resources for everyone.[/QUOTE] Well with the current technology we have more than what is necessary to make everyone live well and equally. But new technology like Nuclear Fusion might even make it better. That will be almost limitless energy
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47648346]wat[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;47648358]well this brings up a lot of things like population growth and what its causes are/ will it continue as well as how much there REALLY is to go around.[/QUOTE] This is a fact, not an opinion: You don't understand how economics works.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;47648349]I don't understand... What do they think is wrong with Canada, exactly? In what would a communist revolution benefit Canada? Maybe i shouldn't try to find logic in a communist's head, but it makes me legitimately curious.[/QUOTE] why does everyone think the protest is for communism? it's just anti capitalism general [editline]3rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;47648362]This is a fact, not an opinion: You don't understand how economics works.[/QUOTE] what is a fact?
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;47648349]I don't understand... What do they think is wrong with Canada, exactly? In what would a communist revolution benefit Canada? Maybe i shouldn't try to find logic in a communist's head, but it makes me legitimately curious.[/QUOTE] The province of Quebec have a lot of problems due to the current government. They are milking the lower class and laugh at them. So they are angry. The idea of Socialism and communism is there due to the inequality and they want to bright it back.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47648293]I am standing very in the middle. Capitalism is a very good system when done properly. I think the best economy would be a fair mix between the socialism and Capitalism. The companies should pay an higher amount of taxes than the citizens and give back that money in services. Free school. Healthcare, medication, etc. Very similar to the actual system. Just a bit improved. Encouraging industries to invest socially like in the roads or school etc. to help the societies instead of directly paying taxes. Plus. What is the point to be billionaire? What can you do with a couple of billions dollars that you can't do with a few millions? ( except buying ridiculously huge mansion ) The top 1% richest people should follow the example of Bill Gates. where he Give billions to charities and organisation throughout the world to help fighting disease and improve the life of people a in third world countries[/QUOTE] I don't see the point in raising company taxes. When a company makes a profit after tax, it's not like that money is free money for the company's executives and owners to do as they see fit. If the executives receive a share of it such as in a higher salary, that's taxable via income tax. If they are paid in shares, that's taxable via capital gains tax. If the profit is distributed as a dividend, the dividend received by the shareholders is taxable via income tax. In fact, because of dividend imputation here, theoretically the tax office would receive the same amount of revenue if company tax was abolished. Of course, that would mean every company would always issue full dividends. The U.S. is different because they don't have dividend imputation, so they have double-dip taxation, which is stupid.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47648366]what is a fact?[/QUOTE] That everybody wants it all and there is simply not enough resources on our planet to make it happen, even if we achieved neutral population growth.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47648391]I don't see the point in raising company taxes. When a company makes a profit after tax, it's not like that money is free money for the company's executives and owners to do as they see fit. If the executives receive a share of it such as in a higher salary, that's taxable via income tax. If they are paid in shares, that's taxable via capital gains tax. If the profit is distributed as a dividend, the dividend received by the shareholders is taxable via income tax. In fact, because of dividend imputation here, theoretically the tax office would receive the same amount of revenue if company tax was abolished. Of course, that would mean every company would always issue full dividends. The U.S. is different because they don't have dividend imputation, so they have double-dip taxation, which is stupid.[/QUOTE] I meant that to most large corporation due to the extreme amount of money they get and use taxes shelter very often. I think that giving them the choice to save taxes by investing in the society should be a great option. Even then. I don't even understand why they try to avoid paying taxes. It's not like they were going on bankrupt
[QUOTE=darunner;47648414]That everybody wants it all and there is simply not enough resources on our planet to make it happen, even if we achieved neutral population growth.[/QUOTE] that isn't a fact at all
[QUOTE=darunner;47648414]That everybody wants it all and there is simply not enough resources on our planet to make it happen, even if we achieved neutral population growth.[/QUOTE] Land is scarce, and controlling population growth is contrary to post-scarcity (equivalent to rationing any other resource). Whoops arguing against someone on the same side lol
[QUOTE=darunner;47648414]That everybody wants it all and there is simply not enough resources on our planet to make it happen, even if we achieved neutral population growth.[/QUOTE] Yeah well maybe the best solution is to find a way to cut on the Greed. That will allow people to be happy with less I am mostly talking to the billionaire here.
[QUOTE=darunner;47648414]That everybody wants it all and there is simply not enough resources on our planet to make it happen, even if we achieved neutral population growth.[/QUOTE] Never mind the fact that if the population stopped growing, so would the world's economies. We need a constant influx of new workers in order for industries to continue expanding.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47648421]that isn't a fact at all[/QUOTE] Explain?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47648449]Explain?[/QUOTE] I have to explain my negative statement? [editline]3rd May 2015[/editline] darunner is the one who made the claim
When people call one another wrong, they usually give reasons why other than just saying "no, you're wrong".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47648266]I'm pro-capitalism but I think trusts are an enemy of a free state, democratic state.[/QUOTE] I am pro-capitalism, too, but without regulation, as in anti-trust laws, it will be used to hurt most people, enslaving them into a vicious circle of debt. The only winners of this are a few people who end up controlling everything as money equals power. One thing that was the result of these laws was the emergence of the middle class, where before you had the small but wealthy upperclass deciding what course the economy and therefore the country itself is heading to while the working class was forced to work in abysmal condition for the lowest pay. With the middle class the industries changed to cater to the consumerism. Henry Ford invented affordable cars, while also paying his workers a good wage and introducing the standard 40 hour workweek. People now had money and time to reinvest into things they wanted to have, like a car, kitchen appliances, etc...
if I say there is an invisible teapot orbiting the planet should i be the one to explain why i think that, or should you explain why you think the opposite?
[QUOTE=Zyler;47648434]Never mind the fact that if the population stopped growing, so would the world's economies. We need a constant influx of new workers in order for industries to continue expanding.[/QUOTE] What? the automotive industry is expanding and it is using less human work force as the years pass. Humans can change their role and in within the span of a lifetime, hence why your argument is wrong. Assuming we can't change roles or we are stick to only job, then, yes, we need a constante growth. But that's not the case. Plus, it has been scientifically proven -Administration, that's why that career exists- that improvements in productivity nowadays are less related to K and L and more related to organization and structure plus knowledge.... The theory of 1848 no longer applies to 2015.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.