• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

All Communists are dead-beats

Thunder said:
forgive me for sounding harsh, but I think folks who contribute little or nothing, should get the BEAR MINIMUM from the govt.
Click to expand...

I agree. So why do people who sell stocks and obligations get so much money? They contribute nothing!
 
Thunder said:
um...someone has chosen to compensate them for their labor. deal with it.
Click to expand...

What labour? They just bought cheap, sold expensive. They have produced nothing, and aided in the production of nothing. They have just moved money for their own profit.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
What labour? They just bought cheap, sold expensive. They have produced nothing, and aided in the production of nothing. They have just moved money for their own profit.
Click to expand...

haa!!!

i wonder how many folks at JREF "produce" anything.

im sure very few.

how many people do you know who make things?

doctors, lawyers, accountants, bus drivers, produce nothing. they perform a needed or desired service.
 
Thunder said:
haa!!!

i wonder how many folks at JREF "produce" anything.

im sure very few.

how many people do you know who make things?

doctors, lawyers, accountants, bus drivers, produce nothing. they perform a needed or desired service.
Click to expand...

So what service do people who make all their money on the stock market provide?

A binman comes and takes your rubbish away, a doctor heals you when you're sick, a policeman or woman evforces the law and a minimum wage worker sells you your McDonalds. Not all of it is totally neccessary but it's all a service. What do the people on the stock market do Parky?

What about the rich who do nothing and inherit millions? Paris Hilton for instance. How about those who become rich trading in currency? All they do is shuffle money around and skim profit from it. They alter the ebb and flow of the economy but they don't do it for anything other than profit and most of the time the change is barely noticable to you or I.

So what was your point?


ETA:
Thunder said:
Communists were the only boogey-man who who could have annihilited the entire planet with one push of a button.

The Communists finished the job that Hitler started, in most of Eastern Europe. So as far as I am concerned, they all suck.
Click to expand...

It's already been firmly established that the USSR were not by any definition Communists. Is the man in the mental hospital Napoleon? He says he is.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
So what service do people who make all their money on the stock market provide?
Click to expand...

they are paid to invest money.

its a service. just like the guy who manages your 401k.

but obviously folks who do no work and just live of the profits of their investments, produce nothing.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
they are paid to invest money.

its a service. just like the guy who manages your 401k.

but obviously folks who do no work and just live of the profits of their investments, produce nothing.
Click to expand...
That sounds familiar...
Capital is dead labor,that vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.
Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Volume I, Chapter 10, Section 1, p. 257
Click to expand...
 
TubbaBlubba said:
What labour? They just bought cheap, sold expensive. They have produced nothing, and aided in the production of nothing. They have just moved money for their own profit.
Click to expand...

People moving large amounts of capital is essentially what permits an average Joe to get a car loan, a rising entrepreneur to hire staff and a multinational corporation to build a massive factory. The current economy, and most of it's benefits, would be completely impossible if there weren't people spending all their time directing the flows of capital.

There is an argument to be made that these people are compensated too much, but to claim they produce no labor is pretty much equal to saying a doctor or a teacher produce nothing. They all produce a service and receive a compensation. The only difference is that while a doctor receives compensation as a salary, people juggling stocks simply shave a bit off the flows of money as they rush by.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I don't know...does it?
Click to expand...

Let's try another one. I believe I shouldn't kill people. Does that make me Judaist? If you can answer that one, the other question should be easy too.

(Well, there is a slight difference; some bigoted Americans who bought all of the Cold War propaganda would say it made you a Communist. They'd be completely wrong, of course, but the word is often used to mean just about anyone who isn't strictly republican. If that's the way you use it, then yes - you, too, are a Commie.)
 
quadraginta said:
The report you've unearthed as a citation was crafted with the particular and singular goal in mind of justifying U.S. participation in Vietnam solely on the basis of the threat of "global communism". It is not a scholarly report. It is an apologia whose purpose was a desperate political defense of what at the time was rapidly being exposed as an untenable position. It is no coincidence that (as do you) it neglects, or rather avoids any mention of any circumstances which might reflect poorly on either the French or the South Vietnamese.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's just casting aspersions on motives. You haven't actually demonstrated it's wrong.

quadraginta said:
It is interesting that the quote you chose singled out Bernard Fall, whose 1963 book was excerpted in a carefully selected fashion in that 1972 report. There are reasons that the opinions of Bernard Fall were limited to a few short, very specific criticisms.

Fall was a partisan for the French with an abiding hatred of the communists...
Click to expand...

Whole load of irrelevant material here. Did the North Vietnamese commies kill a bunch of people or not?

Rummel estimates 283,000 dead from the Land Reforms and 24,000 dead in concentration camps. Which apparently America made them do or something.
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/sod.chap6.htm#*



To commit my very own "No true Scotsman" fallacy, no sane and knowledgeable observer of that part of the world ever believed that a military solution in Vietnam would be successful. Even some of the insane ones made some rather pointed comments about the futility of land wars in southeast Asia.
Click to expand...

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy.

quadraginta said:
Can you manage an honest discussion? I said,




You are suggesting that "the "communist threat" represented by Vietnam" is a perfect synonym for "communism". Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, it is the very subject of the term "communism" and its meaning which are under discussion. Maybe you'd like to provide your definition. While you're at it go ahead and specify who "they" are, so we can learn a little bit more about your new body count.

The word "communism" had been in use as a political bogeyman in the U.S. long before the Vietnam war, or even WWII. The post-WWII acceleration of this was one of the more abiding disgraces of the 20th Century in this country. Some remnants of that shameful episode still exist to this day, as is apparent by the ease with which even the term "socialism" can be used ( or maybe I should say "misused") as a pejorative by certain parties.
Click to expand...

There you go again with your bogeyman claim. They were mad, they killed more people than any other political or religious group in history then pointed nuclear weapons at you. It's a good thing America was around to contain and ultimately, defeat communism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom