You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Marxian-Socialism, rising?
- Thread starter Jai
- Start date
It can't happen here? *Flush*
I'm just a little itty bity guy, and I always thought in the battle for survival that would help because it doesn't take much to keep me alive.Quote from Eight:
This thread kicked off something funny in my head. I wonder if donning the glasses of "survival of the fittest" makes a person less fit for survival?
But I was surprised to learn that the larger the body mass, the more efficiently the body uses food for energy.
So they got me coming and going, first, they can beat my ass, and then they can take what little I had, and use it more efficiently.
If it wasn't for self pride, I would vote socialist, just in hopes all us little guys could band together and be protected from the big guys. (but that would not be a very efficient use of resources.)
Communism is alive and well, and practiced by both Republicans and Democrats for the last 40 years.
oh wow. very clever....
Quote from Eight:
This thread kicked off something funny in my head. I wonder if donning the glasses of "survival of the fittest" makes a person less fit for survival?
It will probably depend on the person. Some time ago, I read that one of Darwin's relatives said that the most terrible thing that could happen would be if the masses took his findings to heart.
It also depends what you mean by "donning the glasses". One can recognize the truth of Darwinism and, as a result, procreate as much as possible in order to have the greatest possible influence on future evolution or one could recognize that truth and adapt a nihilistic "What does it matter?" stance and commit suicide.
Free healthcare or temporary social support are Socialism but are absolutely necessary
Marxism, Communism etc. are so impractical that they do not even need to be discussed.
$71M a year package for Yahoo's CEO is something as impractical as Communism. Why not $7M or even $15M. Rest of the money could have easily employed another 1000 people at roughly $50K a year including benefits.
Wonder why US unemployment is still 8-9%?
Wonder why lunatics like Colorado shooter show up out of no where. If this guy had a $50K intense researcher job in some Lab, he would not have had mental energy left to plan for nonsense that he committed.
Marxism, Communism etc. are so impractical that they do not even need to be discussed.
$71M a year package for Yahoo's CEO is something as impractical as Communism. Why not $7M or even $15M. Rest of the money could have easily employed another 1000 people at roughly $50K a year including benefits.
Wonder why US unemployment is still 8-9%?
Wonder why lunatics like Colorado shooter show up out of no where. If this guy had a $50K intense researcher job in some Lab, he would not have had mental energy left to plan for nonsense that he committed.
Quote from toc:
$71M a year package for Yahoo's CEO is something as impractical as Communism. Why not $7M or even $15M. Rest of the money could have easily employed another 1000 people at roughly $50K a year including benefits.
How do you know it is not employing another 1000 people? you think she puts it under her mattress? She will never even handle most of that money.
-burn8
Quote from Humpy:
...
Who let bankers off their constraints by squashing the Glass/Steagall laws - none other than Clinton. Copied by poodle UK and others. Ruined the World economy so don't come the superior country - the recent record just doesn't stand up to the inspection.
You have to go back 200+ years ! Really.
Just a small note here to put things into perspective. Though Glass-Steagall was done away with, the most important parts of it anyway, during the final months of Clinton's presidency, and though he did sign the act, it was an entirely Republican affair spearheaded by Phil Gramm in the Senate, Leach and Bliley in the House. The act followed a year of wrangling and very heavy lobbying by the banking institutions including large contributions by the financial industry to both sides, but particularly to Gramm. I believe that the final act was attached to a must pass omnibus spending bill that was passed in the waning hours of the 1999 session just before the Christmas recess. There was little debate of the final version, though a year of acrimony and wrangling preceded the final passage of the most important financial regulatory Act since the Great Depression. Most notably, Tom Daschle, the Democrat Senator from South Dakota, in opposition to the Act, pointed out that the Act would lead to "too big to fail" institutions that would have to be bailed out by the tax payer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml
______________
N.B. : Gramm's wife Wendy was appointed to the CFTC!!! The chief regulating body for derivatives.