PureX
Veteran Member
Economic fascism is still fascism.Please learn what a fascist is, because no matter what the cute checklists say we are not living under one.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Economic fascism is still fascism.Please learn what a fascist is, because no matter what the cute checklists say we are not living under one.
Do you plan to personally take up arms against us capitalists?Ever heard of warfare? It may not be reasonable, but it is sometimes necessary, as a last resort. And not all our enemies are outside our borders. In fact, the most dangerous ones are not only among us, but are in positions of great wealth and power.
What's your alternative to capitalism?Economic fascism is still fascism.
What's your alternative to capitalism?
When we look more like the peasants of Tsarist Russia or Medieval Europe you'll have a point.Economic fascism is still fascism.
Democratic socialism. A system in which the consumers, the producers, and the investors all have an equal say in how the nation's business enterprise is being operated, and can therefor share in it's success or failure.What's your alternative to capitalism?
Like I said, it's not a question of capitalism being toxic, it's just a question of how bad it has to get before people are finally willing to admit it, and do something about it.When we look more like the peasants of Tsarist Russia or Medieval Europe you'll have a point.
Greed would be severely punished...off to prison with them.If someone opens a family bakery or grocery store,
what will be done to them. What if they try to reinvest
and grow?
Democratic socialism. A system in which the consumers, the producers, and the investors all have an equal say in how the nation's business enterprise is being operated, and can therefor share in it's success or failure.
Like I said, it's not a question of capitalism being toxic, it's just a question of how bad it has to get before people are finally willing to admit it, and do something about it.
Greed would be severely punished...off to prison with them.
Only noble competent state run operations would supply
baked goods....healthy politically correct baked goods
which are free of gluten, sugar, & bogourois flavors.
Why on Earth would anyone ever invest money & work toTry to imagine management of even a bakery
divided up among three groups with competing
or opposite goals.
Yes, each would have to learn to accommodate the needs/desires of the others, or the business could not exist. Just as it should be.Try to imagine management of even a bakery
divided up among three groups with competing
or opposite goals.
When we look more like the peasants of Tsarist Russia or Medieval Europe you'll have a point.
"Extra money" is absolutely worthless until it's either spent, or invested. So as long as there is some profit to be gained on the capital being invested, people will invest it.Why on Earth would anyone ever invest money & work to
start a bakery, only to turn over control to the community?
All work, but no profit or power.
Free donuts perhaps?
Yes, each would have to learn to accommodate the needs/desires of the others, or the business could not exist. Just as it should be.
One should have power over what one owns."Extra money" is absolutely worthless until it's either spent, or invested. So as long as there is some profit to be gained on the capital being invested, people will invest it.
So the real question is; should the capital investor have ALL THE POWER AND CONTROL of the business invested in, and TAKE ALL THE PROFITS for him/herself if successful, when the investor is not producing the product or service, nor consuming it? And the answer is 'no', because the business enterprise effects the lives and livelihoods of all three, and therefor should be controlled by all three, and if successful, should reward all three.
When everyone shares in the control, and the profit, it's called cooperation. When everyone has to fight to be recognized and accommodated, it's called competition. Competition is a very ineffective and unfair method of operating a business enterprise. As we all can see from the results. It generates big winners (undeserved) and big losers (exploited). Whereas cooperation ensures that everyone is being represented, and rewarded, according to their contribution.Of course. Any business that does meet the needs
of suppliers, workers, consumers and investors does
fail unless put on govt life support.
That is nothing new or different
What ¡s it really, you have figured out a
better way than what people have done around
the world since deepest antiquity?
"Extra money" is absolutely worthless until it's either spent, or invested. So as long as there is some profit to be gained on the capital being invested, people will invest it.
So the real question is; should the capital investor have ALL THE POWER AND CONTROL of the business invested in, and TAKE ALL THE PROFITS for him/herself if successful, when the investor is not producing the product or service, nor consuming it? And the answer is 'no', because the business enterprise effects the lives and livelihoods of all three, and therefor should be controlled by all three, and if successful, should reward all three.
You are such a rat, always making my point betterOne should have power over what one owns.
If you don't like the way I run my business,
you can patronize the one down the street.
That's your power.