Thatâs a lovely revolutionary style shirt that Gerry has on in that photo.
Top Socialist Jarry (owner of 3 houses) caught informing to the guards, how do the ra stoolers square that one up? 
[quote=âFagan_ODowd, post:526, topic:23439, full:trueâ]
we only have a capitalist system still because governments around the world were blackmailed into propping it up temporarily after the crash. It failed spectacularly, or had you forgotten that. It will fail again too, and all it is doing in the meantime is returning us to a modern variant of the feudal system, with a few super rich billionaires taking the place of the aristocratic elite, a manager/professional class replacing the old courtier class and a vast impoverished underclass in the serf role, only this time they wonât even have any work to do. Theyâll get a few handouts from the elite though and theyâll be fed dross through the media, which will keep them from rebelling. [/quote]
Governments are doing what you describe above, not capitalism. The financial crisis was not caused by free market capitalism (which we donât have anyway), it was caused by government intervention in markets. In the US policies implemented by the Fed, FDIC, FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to the financial crisis. Those are all government agencies, not free market institutions.
You are right though, we are headed for another crisis, and for the same reasons. The agencies named above still exist, and if anything have greater power than they had in 2008 (unsurprisingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two of the largest donors to both political parties). They should all have been phased out and the âtoo big to failâ banks broken up, but politicians are more interested in maintaining the unsustainable status quo than protecting the people they are elected to serve.
1 Like
[quote=âSidney, post:534, topic:23439, full:trueâ]
Youâre actually defending US interventionism now having previously claimed to be a âlibertarianâ. 
Some libertarian, a proper warmongering neo-con, more like.
âBy far the best system availableâ, eh? [/quote]
As usual, you are attacking an argument I havenât made, in a quite desperate attempt to label me and anyone who opposes your nonsensical ideology as an extremist.
There is much to criticize about US intervention, historically or in the present day. I am not defending US intervention, I am outlining the reasons for intervention. Of course there are some exceptions, but by and large the conflicts that the US engaged in during the Cold War were to prevent the spread of communism. In case you hadnât noticed, after WWII the US withdrew from Europe and provided economic support to rebuild the West, while the Soviets took control of country after country and pursued an aggressive strategy to fulfill Marxâs dream of a global socialist utopia. All conflicts in Latin America have to be viewed through the prism of the Cold War, the US supported many murderous dictators, but essentially Latin America became a battleground between those wanting to spread capitalism versus communism. After Cuba in 1959, and Castroâs embrace of Marxism (the US embargo came after Castro seized all US assets on the island), US foreign policy in the region became essentially âno more Cubasâ.
Fundamentally you have to decide whether you are on the side of democracy and a market based economy, or totalitarianism and a socialist based economy. Clearly you donât believe in democracy or capitalism, obvious from your support of Castro. Fortunately your side has lost, as 35 years ago only 25% of Latin America was democratic, and now 98% is, the socialist utopia of Cuba being the exception.
So, in summary, yes the US was wrong in many of itâs interventions (but right in others, in the 1960s alone the US provided $20B in economic aid to Latin America), and supported many evil dictators, but ultimately democracy was the outcome, and yes democracy is a preferred system to state totalitarianism.
3 Likes
Breaking up banks is the very opposite of free market capitalism, itâs government intervention.
You misunderstand free market capitalism because you misunderstand human nature, which is ironically the thing people like you erroneously accuse people on the left of doing.
Capitalists are not noble beings like Ayn Rand thought. They are generally sharks who will do anything to gain market share and put competitors out of business, and who generally think of their own short term, rational financial interest, to the exclusion of any thoughts of the implications for wider society.
True free market capitalism does not allow for banks to be broken up or competition to be enforced. If either of those happen, thatâs obvious market interference.
This anti-regulation mantra is one the right have continuously pushed.
The obvious follow on is that corporations are able to abuse dominant market position to gain political influence, shut out new entrants to the market, gobble up competitors and attain exactly the sort of âtoo big to failâ position that happened with banks during the financial crash.
Free market capitalism is crony capitalism by definition.
The true free market position in a crisis is to let banks fail.
That would lead to an utter disaster on a human and societal level.
The alternative, to bail them out, means the people pick up the tab .
No true free market nation state economy has ever successfully existed.
You two should get a room
[quote=âSidney, post:545, topic:23439, full:trueâ]
Breaking up banks is the very opposite of free market capitalism, itâs government intervention.
You misunderstand free market capitalism because you misunderstand human nature, which is ironically the thing people like you erroneously accuse people on the left of doing.
No true free market nation state economy has ever successfully existed.[/quote]
You have a very limited understanding of economics and human nature, like all disciples of Karl Marx.
Where did I say all government intervention is bad? The primary role of government is to protect its citizens from existential threats and to pursue policies that lead to improvements in the standard of living. Examples in economics are not allowing corporations get large enough to threaten the economy and not allowing monopolies. Interfering in the market to try and pick winners and losers, or drive nonsensical policies like everyone should buy a home whether they can afford the mortgage or not, should not be the role of government.
Since the industrial revolution began in 1760, all improvements in the standard of living have stemmed from capitalism. Name one state that embraced communism that is a success story. I agree there is no 100% free market economy, but letâs look at those that are ranked highest versus lowest shall we. The closest to free market are Singapore, Australia and the US in that order. Surprisingly they also have millions of people who desire to move there, including quite a large number of Irish. I wonder why that is?
Why donât we do a TFK survey and see how many members live in these three countries, compared to the numbers living in North Korea and Cuba.
Fixed that for you 
1 Like
Itâs utterly laughable to claim the US was on the side of democracy.
The US has proved over and over and over again it is only interested in bullying smaller countries to do things the way the US wants.
You donât have to like communism. You only have to acknowledge the right of countries to govern themselves as they see fit. The US did not acknowledge that right. If the government of a country is not to your liking and you intervene to change that government, as the US did so many times, you cannot claim to be a democrat or to respect international law.
35 years ago most of Latin America was under totalitarian dictatorship. Those dictatorships were almost all totalitarian, US-backed dictatorships which were hated by the people of those countries. No wonder that when democracy eventually came, the people of those countries mainly elected left-wing governments. No surprise really, having endured the brutality of regimes who ran their countries in the interests of foreign capital.
The US only had itself to blame to for Castro siding with the Soviets. As I said previously, it was basic self-preservation based on the lessons of places like Iran and Guatemala.
1 Like
If you advocate government intervention youâre not a free market capitalist. Deregulation and trickle don economics has proven over and over again to be a recipe for financial disaster and Trump is clearly determined to go down that road again.
The US economy thrived when it had 90% tax top marginal tax rates and adopted a more social democratic model. The seeds of the financial crash of the last decade were sown decades before when it decided to slash taxes, gutted organised labour and let business take control of policy.
Now itâs decided to vote for more of the same failed policies which has it in the mess itâs in. It wonât end well.
Pretty much all economies, even Cuba, are mixed. Only the degree of regulation and government participation differ.
Clearly, the ones which have a higher degree of government participation in the economy, good regulation, a good social safety net and a more enlightened view of labour relations will generally come out tops, as Northern European ones tend to do.
Again, youâre ignorant of history. Government, not capitalism, is why youâre reading this right now, given that it was government which led to the invention of the microchip, the INTERNET and the touch screen, and a multitude of other innovations which improved peopleâs standard of living.
Mentioning North Korea, oh please, thereâs only one response to that and thatâs to update the right-wing cliche bingo thread again.
1 Like
Bah gawd King, itâs a heel turn worthy of the WWE there. Winding up her own demographic. This girl is fucking class 
1 Like
The bottom line is Socialism doesnât work. All successful economies are based on capitalism, it is capitalism in liberal democracies that has led to prosperity and the reduction of poverty. The success of capitalism is what facilitated social democracy, as successful economies can afford social programs as they become more prosperous (Scandinavian countries are actually the best example of the success of capitalism, not of socialism).
The nutter left in Europe had to abandon their Marxist dream in the 1950s as it was obvious what kind of societies it led to. However, scratch a left wing Social Democrat and you find a Marxist, as the ultimate goal is still a socialist state, the tactics have just changed. Sadly for the left, for the second time in the post WWII era, Socialism is again being rejected. There are only two possible outcomes from socialist ideology, totalitarian regimes where freedom disappears (USSR, China in the 20th century), or bloated governments that result in economic stagnation (the EU of today).
As for governmentsâ contribution to the growth of modern western societies, you must be having a laugh. Governments produce nothing, and any research conducted by government is funded by the taxpayer and especially by industry. Inventions are worth nothing unless they can be converted into products, and all productization and production occurs in the private sector.
You are right though, this is boring and has been done to death, so you can have the last word.
[quote=âSidney, post:549, topic:23439, full:trueâ]
Itâs utterly laughable to claim the US was on the side of democracy. [/quote]
Once again you are arguing with a point I didnât make.
The US was on the side of capitalism. Democracy always follows when a society embraces capitalism, study your history as you encourage others to do.
Bernie Sanders is the closest advocate to the Nordic model in the US, yet you consider him a nutcase.
That is government, mate.
whatâs PCP, pal?
A lovely socialist moment as Castroâs heap of shit hearse breaks down and his commie soldiers have to jump out and push his ass up the road 
3 Likes
1 Like
Seeing those Cuban doctors arriving in Italy had tears in my eyes.
That is the legacy of Fidel Castro, one of the greatest statesmen the world has ever seen.
Patrio o Muerte 
2 Likes
Any link?
Thank you Cuba
Thank you China
Thank you Russia
Thank you communism
3 Likes