Oh America...

[Apathy Reactor]

America... Land of the greed and home of the corrupt.

This is also true for Earth.

VOTE PIOTR for truth

*Writes Piotr on the ballot*
GOOD ENOUGH

IM DOWN WITH IT!

[Piotr]

Capitalism is doomed to fail. Socialism, in theory, works great, however, no one likes it.

No, it has been proven by theorists that Socialism doesn't work, that it cannot successfully be implemented in practice. It has been confirmed by 150 of failed implementations of Socialism that it cannot work in practice, for the very reason why it doesn't work in theory: everyone is greedy and needy. So if people are given opportunity to claim that they need something for free, they will, and the system will run out of resources and collapse.

[Piotr]

So communism with less regulation and more opportunity?

Communism is the far left wing of Socialism, per classic definitions of economic systems, so it would by definition be more regulated. No private ownership at all. Communism is great within immediate family. Beyond that, you will always have problems related to property. Whose apple is that, and it only gets worse from there

For me, the ideal economic system is freedom, free market, the classic definition of Capitalism. Please note that corporate sponsored regulations belong to Socialism, not Capitalism.

[xStrayKnightx]

Government: The Gathering

I'm down!

[Piotr]

So more capitalism as described by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Adam Smith rather than what it has evolved or devolved into?

More freedom.
I would look into the works of Austrian School of Economy, people like Von Mises and Hayek, if you are interested in theory.

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

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

So more capitalism as described by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Adam Smith rather than what it has evolved or devolved into?

More freedom.
I would look into the works of Austrian School of Economy, people like Von Mises and Hayek, if you are interested in theory.

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

So laissez faire economics? We have seen many times that when we have laissez faire, businesses will run rampant. Just look at the oppressive monopolies of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Every economic system must have some sort of government oversight to prevent bubbles, monopolies, insider trading, product quality control, ect.

[Piotr]

So more capitalism as described by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Adam Smith rather than what it has evolved or devolved into?

More freedom.
I would look into the works of Austrian School of Economy, people like Von Mises and Hayek, if you are interested in theory.

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

So laissez faire economics? We have seen many times that when we have laissez faire, businesses will run rampant. Just look at the oppressive monopolies of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Every economic system must have some sort of government oversight to prevent bubbles, monopolies, insider trading, product quality control, ect.

Long running monopoly is not possible in free market because competition always destroys it.

Monopolies in the long run are only possible when you regulate the market.

[Mattao19]

But Canadians, not so much. Snowbirds are terrible.


Rasser is cool.

Hockey, eh? Mattao is cool too.

I like how Canada is basically a mild-mannered America. Except cold as balls.

Lol thanks bud!

[Butch1977]

It's 'Murica! Let's get the spelling right. I am by no means an economist. I do beieve that this country has made it more profitable for certain people not to contribute. I don't blame anyone one leader. I blame a current mentality. It seems as though people have been brainwashed into the "graduate college and you'll make 6 figures" mindset. I have only one comment. Call the plumber that didn't go 90 grand in debt for college to come to your house to fix your sink on the weekend, or the look at the hourly charge to fix your car when it breaks down. I'll work on an engine or snake a pipe to get the money those buisness owners get paid.

PS reading further into this thread about the Rockefellers and names of the ultra wealthy, a poor man has never been able to offer me a job.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

So more capitalism as described by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Adam Smith rather than what it has evolved or devolved into?

More freedom.
I would look into the works of Austrian School of Economy, people like Von Mises and Hayek, if you are interested in theory.

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

So laissez faire economics? We have seen many times that when we have laissez faire, businesses will run rampant. Just look at the oppressive monopolies of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Every economic system must have some sort of government oversight to prevent bubbles, monopolies, insider trading, product quality control, ect.

Long running monopoly is not possible in free market because competition always destroys it.

Monopolies in the long run are only possible when you regulate the market.

No, because Carnegie and Rockefeller were smart. They would move into a town and sell all of their goods and services at like 80% of their competitors prices just to drive them out of business and then raise the price to like 110% of what their competitor charged. If another business stepped forward, they'd just lower the price again to drive them out of business.

[Piotr]

So more capitalism as described by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Adam Smith rather than what it has evolved or devolved into?

More freedom.
I would look into the works of Austrian School of Economy, people like Von Mises and Hayek, if you are interested in theory.

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

So laissez faire economics? We have seen many times that when we have laissez faire, businesses will run rampant. Just look at the oppressive monopolies of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Every economic system must have some sort of government oversight to prevent bubbles, monopolies, insider trading, product quality control, ect.

Long running monopoly is not possible in free market because competition always destroys it.

Monopolies in the long run are only possible when you regulate the market.

No, because Carnegie and Rockefeller were smart. They would move into a town and sell all of their goods and services at like 80% of their competitors prices just to drive them out of business and then raise the price to like 110% of what their competitor charged. If another business stepped forward, they'd just lower the price again to drive them out of business.

You call selling below cost smart? Lol.

[Vileo]

But Canadians, not so much. Snowbirds are terrible.


Rasser is cool.

Hockey, eh? Mattao is cool too.

I like how Canada is basically a mild-mannered America. Except cold as balls.

Lol thanks bud!

Youre welcome lol.

[Piotr]

So more capitalism as described by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Adam Smith rather than what it has evolved or devolved into?

More freedom.
I would look into the works of Austrian School of Economy, people like Von Mises and Hayek, if you are interested in theory.

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

So laissez faire economics? We have seen many times that when we have laissez faire, businesses will run rampant. Just look at the oppressive monopolies of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Every economic system must have some sort of government oversight to prevent bubbles, monopolies, insider trading, product quality control, ect.

Long running monopoly is not possible in free market because competition always destroys it.

Monopolies in the long run are only possible when you regulate the market.

No, because Carnegie and Rockefeller were smart. They would move into a town and sell all of their goods and services at like 80% of their competitors prices just to drive them out of business and then raise the price to like 110% of what their competitor charged. If another business stepped forward, they'd just lower the price again to drive them out of business.

You call selling below cost smart? Lol.

If it drives competition out of business and you can take the hit then yes, and that's just what they did.

The competition simply buys the product you try to sell below cost, and you go bust. This is not what they did though, and you are spreading lies.

[Mattao19]

No it's still above cost (from what I got out of it) so say it's a $0.50 idk choc. bar (cost from distributor) the ma and pa store sells it for $1 then Rockefeller and Carnegie come into town and start selling it for 80% of the ma and pa shop so $0.80 this now drives the ma and pa store out while still giving R and C a healthy profit margin.

[Vileo]

The competition simply buys the product you try to sell below cost, and you go bust. This is not what they did though, and you are spreading lies.

No it's still above cost (from what I got out of it) so say it's a $0.50 idk choc. bar (cost from distributor) the ma and pa store sells it for $1 then Rockefeller and Carnegie come into town and start selling it for 80% of the ma and pa shop so $0.80 this now drives the ma and pa store out while still giving R and C a healthy profit margin.

I just imagined some dude going into a little mom and pops store and grabbing like all the chocolates from their shelves and then selling them for $0.20 higher...