The real Enemy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zimzum

No, Stupidity is thinking we can end them hating us with military force. They have been shit on by the world and taken advantage of for there oil since ww2. If we show them some respect maybe they will give it in return.

---

Good point Zim. Continuously bombing the shit out of the Muslims is not going to win us any friends. At least not over there. Anyone who thinks that the radical Muslim hatred of us has more to do with the fact that we(well, some of us) are Christians, and not due to our foriegn policy, is simply stupid. If that was the case then why just America, or countries that go along with us? There's a shitload of other, non-Muslim countries out there that aren't being targeted by terrorists.

The bottom line is that G. Dubya's moronic foreign policy will do far more to continue radical Muslim terrorism than it will do to stop it. You can not go out and kill a persons friends and family and then expect them to want to be your friend. It goes against human nature and basic common sense. The latter trait not possessed by our current "leader".

People like Bong wont be happy till the middle east looks like this.

I was not going to comment anymore because of all the name calling but I can't help myself....

Bong your argument for the number one problem in America being stupidity is a valid one. You make an excellent point. Keep up the good work. LMAO

you are a great socialist keep it up.............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zimzum

People like Bong wont be happy till the middle east looks like this.

---

Ill be happy after they reform that dumb religon.....

Bong I am curious....what is it about socialism that frightens you?

that it doesnt work

with out a profit motive people wont get off there asses and get out of bed.

look at health care.....if it was socialized all the good doc would be something else.

you need the market to make people the best you can be.....


Bc, I watched my MOM work 3 jobs for so many years it hurts me to think of it.....I f she didnt need social systems no one does.....


Its all about the profit MOTIVE.... motivation to be the best at what you do.

when the 3 year plan went to the 5 year plan and the 5 year plan went to 10 years in the soviet union...it was done

socialism just doesnt work....

Really and you think democracy works? Tell me why you support one over the other.

I am living proof.....


I work for myself....... I dont need no goverment hand outs.....

you are mixing up the 2


Im talking Capitalism not Democracy.....

Democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Democracy (disambiguation).
Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δημοκρατία-demokratia demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government. Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy,[1] but there is no necessity that democracies are liberal (i.e. respectful of individual liberty and property) and in some cases may be illiberal democracies. There are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies such as labor unions or civic organizations.

Capitalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Real-World Examples and Models

This box: view • talk • edit
Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately or corporately owned and operated for profit and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor and money (see finance and credit). The term also refers to several theories that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and the Cold War meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets. (See economics, political economy, laissez-faire.)[



You are Mixing up the 2..... Democracy is how to rule the people, capitalism is how you get them out of bed.......

I believe in the works of people like......

Adam Smith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other persons named Adam Smith, see Adam Smith (disambiguation).
Western Philosophers
18th-century philosophy
(Modern Philosophy)

Adam Smith
Name: Adam Smith
Birth: June 5, 1723 (baptized) (Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland, Kingdom of Great Britain)
Death: July 17, 1790 (Edinburgh, Scotland, Kingdom of Great Britain)
School/tradition: Classical economics
Main interests: Political philosophy, ethics, economics
Notable ideas: Classical economics, modern free market, division of labour, invisible hand
Influences: Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Mandeville, Hutcheson, Hume, Montesquieu, Quesnay
Influenced: Malthus, Ricardo, Mill, Keynes, Marx, Engels, American Founding Fathers
Adam Smith, FRSE, (baptized and probably born June 5, 1723 O.S. (June 16 N.S.) – July 17, 1790) was a Scottish political economist and moral philosopher. His Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was one of the earliest attempts to study the historical development of industry and commerce in Europe. That work helped to create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade, capitalism, and libertarianism

Shortly before his death Smith had nearly all his manuscripts destroyed. In his last years he seemed to have been planning two major treatises, one on the theory and history of law and one on the sciences and arts. The posthumously published Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795) probably contain parts of what would have been the latter treatise.

The Wealth of Nations was influential since it did so much to create the field of economics and develop it into an autonomous systematic discipline. In the Western world, it is arguably the most influential book on the subject ever published. When the book, which has become a classic manifesto against mercantilism (the theory that large reserves of bullion are essential for economic success), appeared in 1776, there was a strong sentiment for free trade in both Britain and America. This new feeling had been born out of the economic hardships and poverty caused by the American War of Independence. However, at the time of publication, not everybody was immediately convinced of the advantages of free trade: the British public and Parliament still clung to mercantilism for many years to come.

The Wealth of Nations also rejects the Physiocratic school's emphasis on the importance of land; instead, Smith believed labour was paramount, and that a division of labour would effect a great increase in production. One example he used was the making of pins. One worker could probably make only one pin per day. But if ten people divided up the eighteen steps required to make a pin, they could make a combined amount of 48,000 pins in one day. Nations was so successful, in fact, that it led to the abandonment of earlier economic schools, and later economists, such as Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo, focused on refining Smith's theory into what is now known as classical economics. Both Modern economics and, separately, Marxian economics owe significantly to classical economics. Malthus expanded Smith's ruminations on overpopulation, while Ricardo believed in the "iron law of wages" — that overpopulation would prevent wages from topping the subsistence level. Smith postulated an increase of wages with an increase in production, a view considered more accurate today.

One of the main points of The Wealth of Nations is that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called "invisible hand" (an image that Smith had previously employed in Theory of Moral Sentiments, but which has its original use in his essay, "The History of Astronomy"). If a product shortage occurs, for instance, its price rises, creating a profit margin that creates an incentive for others to enter production, eventually curing the shortage. If too many producers enter the market, the increased competition among manufacturers and increased supply would lower the price of the product to its production cost, the "natural price". Even as profits are zeroed out at the "natural price," there would be incentives to produce goods and services, as all costs of production, including compensation for the owner's labour, are also built into the price of the goods. If prices dip below a zero profit, producers would drop out of the market; if they were above a zero profit, producers would enter the market. Smith believed that while human motives are often selfish and greedy, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.
Smith vigorously attacked the antiquated government restrictions which he thought were hindering industrial expansion. In fact, he attacked most forms of government interference in the economic process, including tariffs, arguing that this creates inefficiency and high prices in the long run. This theory, now referred to as "laissez-faire", which means "let them do", influenced government legislation in later years, especially during the 19th century. (However this was not opposition to government. Smith advocated a Government that was active in sectors other than the economy: he advocated public education of poor adults; institutional systems that were not profitable for private industries; a judiciary; and a standing army.)

You show me ho socialism works...i mean doesnt work

This dumbass got strait As in College Econ.....

I know the difference..I did not ask you to post a wiki...I asked you what you think... why do you support one over the other. I am not talking about capitalism.