Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/3/12 11:47 AM, draco889 wrote: ...

Capitalism is trade.

All trade is, is the distribution of commodities.

All Capitalism is, is the distribution of commodities in a governmental global distribution. It's the dick of trade.

At 11/3/12 11:52 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 11/3/12 11:47 AM, draco889 wrote: ...

Capitalism is trade.

All trade is, is the distribution of commodities.

All Capitalism is, is the distribution of commodities in a governmental global distribution. It's the dick of trade.

You don't understand what I'm saying. Trade is the transfer of gods and services. Capitalism is a system where there is FREE transfer of said goods and services. Its not a "governmental global distribution". The government is not involved in any way, and the principle is applicable to a local as well as a global level.

At 11/3/12 11:58 AM, draco889 wrote: You don't understand what I'm saying. Trade is the transfer of gods and services. Capitalism is a system where there is FREE transfer of said goods and services. Its not a "governmental global distribution". The government is not involved in any way, and the principle is applicable to a local as well as a global level.

Excuse me, not governmental. I was meaning to say political.

Capitalism is the daddy version of trade, is what I'm saying. All it is, is a bigger assessment of trade than trade itself. Trade is a bitch compared to Capitalism. The thing is, Capitalism is the irrational form of trade. It turned nearly everything into an owned property. Trade was simply using objects like rocks, stones, silk, et cetera as a trade subject. Capitalism applied steroids to this system and turned it into a gobal monopoly system.

At 11/3/12 12:05 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Capitalism is the daddy version of trade, is what I'm saying. All it is, is a bigger assessment of trade than trade itself. Trade is a bitch compared to Capitalism. The thing is, Capitalism is the irrational form of trade. It turned nearly everything into an owned property. Trade was simply using objects like rocks, stones, silk, et cetera as a trade subject. Capitalism applied steroids to this system and turned it into a gobal monopoly system.

No, You have serious misconceptions on what trade and capitalism actually are. I really think you should read a basic economics textbook, and then try arguing your point.

At 11/3/12 12:16 PM, draco889 wrote: No, You have serious misconceptions on what trade and capitalism actually are. I really think you should read a basic economics textbook, and then try arguing your point.

They both are involved with trade.

Yet, one is political and the other is just there. It used to be a big thing, back when Capitalism did not exist.

How are they at all any different from each other? You are not explaining yourself. You are just saying ''you're wrong; go read basic stuff that you're already aware of''.

At 11/3/12 12:34 PM, Profanity wrote: Try reading Adam Smith and shutting up for a while.

So essentially, you are implying neoclassical flaming bullshit, yes? Why don't you go get a king sized bag, and spend 700 thousand dollars on a rare type of fecal matter that came from an extinct komodo dragon and leave it on my porch, eh?

I'm not talking about the characteristics of intentions or people's political bias. I'm talking about the synonymous nature of trade and capitalism. Something you don't understand or have any obligation to clear up precisely.

At 11/3/12 01:09 PM, Profanity wrote: There, I've cleared it up for you.

The system is bullshit.

There, I've cleared it up for you.

Now, fuck off you useless plunger.

At 11/3/12 01:21 PM, Profanity wrote: It's able to convert idiots like you into productive members of society.

The people running the system are counter-productive themselves.

So are you.

Now, stop bitching and wake the fuck up you selfish fuck. You know damned well you are just parroting what others think.

At 11/3/12 01:26 PM, Profanity wrote: And who, pray tell, is running the system?

Mini Mitt Romneys.

At 11/3/12 01:58 PM, Profanity wrote: Mitt Romney is a chess piece in a much larger game.

So you admit that they are playing a game with reality.

That is childish and irresponsible behaviour.

At 11/3/12 02:12 PM, Profanity wrote: No, they are playing the only game.

Oh, you mean the 'Fuck Everything; I'm dying anyways' game?

Yeah, a lot of people, such as yourself, play that game like no tomorrow.

At 11/3/12 02:17 PM, Profanity wrote: No, the "this needs to be done for the good of humanity" responsibility sharing and decision-making game.

That games doesn't exist.

It is similar to the ''this doesn't need to be done, but we make it seem like it has to be done, because reality is boring when we aren't fucking everything up and worrying about what we want for ourselves' game.

At 11/3/12 12:40 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm talking about the synonymous nature of trade and capitalism.

It has been explained to you concisely why trade and capitalism are not synonymous; they refer to different things.

Something you don't understand or have any obligation to clear up precisely.

You do not understand what either trade or capitalism mean. They are in no way "the same thing." How you can continue to claim that they are synonymous is insane considering the piles of evidence you've been shown that prove otherwise.

Capitalism is an economic system in which ownership of the means of production is held by private owners as opposed to being held collectively by the proletariat.

Trade is the exchange of commodities at any level.

All your bullshit pseudophilosophical reasoning will change nothing: You are completely wrong.

At 11/3/12 02:23 PM, Profanity wrote: You should pick up a copy of The Wealth of Nations from the library.

Oh, you mean more neo-political fuck faces who obviously are ripping people off.

Wake the fuck up and see the political facets that are governing their motives. These motives are extremely selfish and destructive to any development in political positions.

At 11/3/12 02:24 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 11/3/12 12:40 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm talking about the synonymous nature of trade and capitalism.

It has been explained to you concisely why trade and capitalism are not synonymous; they refer to different things.

No, it has been vaguely explained and mounted on misconceptions. You are assuming the difference can be made by how the defined terms are distributed differently, when that distribution is irrelevant, when you understand that there is no difference between regular folk and political folk in any way, shape or form.

Something you don't understand or have any obligation to clear up precisely.

You do not understand what either trade or capitalism mean. They are in no way "the same thing." How you can continue to claim that they are synonymous is insane considering the piles of evidence you've been shown that prove otherwise.

I don't see pile of evidences. I see vague definitions. And you using vague definitions.

Capitalism is an economic system in which ownership of the means of production is held by private owners as opposed to being held collectively by the proletariat.

Trade is the exchange of commodities at any level.

Wow, so essentially they both are related to trade. Yet, one is different than the other, because one is the daddy and the other is the bitch. I already get it. One has more power over the other. The distribution between the two terms are obviously different when you look at it in that way, but when you look at it as the daddy as being originated from the bitch, you will clearly see that these terms are fuck all defined.

All your bullshit pseudophilosophical reasoning will change nothing: You are completely wrong.

No, you are trying to argue a vague sense of definition.

At 11/3/12 02:38 PM, Insanctuary wrote: And you using vague definitions.

User 4761 explained to you in detail the definitions of the various words you are failing to understand.
I gave you straightforward but no less accurate definitions within my last post:

Capitalism is an economic system in which ownership of the means of production is held by private owners as opposed to being held collectively by the proletariat.

Trade is the exchange of commodities at any level.

This is why you should read and understand what people say before you try responding.

Wow, so essentially they both are related to trade. Yet, one is different than the other, because one is the daddy and the other is the bitch.

Please recognise that this is entirely your misconception which you are stating as if it were demonstrable fact. If you insist on making outlandish (and completely stupid) claims like the above, you have to provide some semblance of evidence or reasoning.

Capitalism is not "the daddy" of trade because trade existed well before capitalism reared its ugly head.
Once again, I advise you to educate yourself on this subject if you wish to attempt to debate it.

At 11/3/12 02:49 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 11/3/12 02:38 PM, Insanctuary wrote: And you using vague definitions.

User 4761 explained to you in detail the definitions of the various words you are failing to understand.
I gave you straightforward but no less accurate definitions within my last post:

He was arguing the same vague definition as you were. Trade is the bitch of Capitalism no more to the point the king is the head, whereas the peasants is why he is the king in the first place.

Capitalism is an economic system in which ownership of the means of production is held by private owners as opposed to being held collectively by the proletariat.

Trade is the exchange of commodities at any level.

This is why you should read and understand what people say before you try responding.

Maybe you should question these stupid definitions first. You are basing this off of retardedly vague definitions. If anything, Capitalism is just compensating word for trade to make itself look bigger than it is. Obviously Capitalism is the bigs gun compared to trade. I already get what you guys are saying, and I'm telling you that the definitions are fucking the same and the way they are different is entirely irrelevant.

Wow, so essentially they both are related to trade. Yet, one is different than the other, because one is the daddy and the other is the bitch.

Please recognise that this is entirely your misconception which you are stating as if it were demonstrable fact. If you insist on making outlandish (and completely stupid) claims like the above, you have to provide some semblance of evidence or reasoning.

Say that to the vague definitions. They are vague. There is nothing seperating them except you blowing two different aspects out of proportion. These aspects play no serious role in the definition of these two terms. How the fuck is Capitalism bigger than trade, but originated from trade? That is the point. That is why the definitions are piss poor. That is why you are wrong.

Capitalism is not "the daddy" of trade because trade existed well before capitalism reared its ugly head.
Once again, I advise you to educate yourself on this subject if you wish to attempt to debate it.

Yes, it is. It clearly is demonstraed by the sheer amount of substance lacking from these two definitions. You are trying to seperate two definitions over a very tiny fuck all aspect that I'm trying to explain has no determined value. There is absolutely nothing healthy about these two definitions. It's all primordial hogwash.

see the thing is you aren't going to win if you take Insanctuary seriously

At 11/3/12 03:19 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: see the thing is you aren't going to win if you take Insanctuary seriously

Hey, shut the fuck up. You are mad because you know what I'm saying makes odd sense. People always rebel when I personally get in their face about what is, and what isn't. Clearly there is a problem with these two definitions and there is also a problem with you narrow-minded fucks who can't tell your ass from logic. If you are going to keep badgering me about how I'm so wrong, why don't you do a better job not making yourself look like a self-conscious fuck, k?

At 11/3/12 03:21 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 11/3/12 03:19 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: see the thing is you aren't going to win if you take Insanctuary seriously

Hey, shut the fuck up. You are mad because you know what I'm saying makes odd sense.

>> calls me angry
>> bitches in following paragraph how everyone doesn't take you seriously

At 11/3/12 03:27 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: >> calls me angry
>> bitches in following paragraph how everyone doesn't take you seriously

No, I called you mad. You are a dysfunctional prick without a prick. Get a life, kid. Stop getting butthurt over critical logic.

You don't contribute to these boards whatsoever. Why don't you leave with your sorry ass phantom substance, k?

I've said it once, I'm going to say it again: Trade and capitalism are one and the same. The only reason why people consist them different from each other is due to a very small aspect that does all fuck to the core of the definition between the two terms. That tiny ass aspect involved is 'who' is distributing the goods. That's it. It's still trade. It's still people of the trade. Yet, there is a difference because people such at nit-picking.

At 11/3/12 03:31 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 11/3/12 03:27 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: >> calls me angry
>> bitches in following paragraph how everyone doesn't take you seriously

No, I called you mad.

angry is a synonym for mad.

At 11/3/12 03:33 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: angry is a synonym for mad.

Unlike capitalism and trade; angry means 'to be upset or annoyed', and mad means 'to be blinded from rationality, or to have the inability to think clearly'.

At 11/3/12 03:34 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 11/3/12 03:33 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: angry is a synonym for mad.

Unlike capitalism and trade; angry means 'to be upset or annoyed', and mad means 'to be blinded from rationality, or to have the inability to think clearly'.

yeah sure thing Insanctuary whatever you say

At 11/3/12 03:36 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: yeah sure thing Insanctuary whatever you say

mad - (of a person, conduct, or an idea) Extremely foolish or ill-advised.

Yeah, now fuck off, kid. I have you cornered again, and all you can do is pull the Confuscianism: ''yeah whatever''.

At 11/3/12 03:45 PM, Profanity wrote: Running away from this post?

I will be a quarter away from 100 tomorrow.

What the fuck else is capitalism? A rabbit trade?

At 11/3/12 04:03 PM, BumFodder wrote: What the fuck else is capitalism? A rabbit trade?

Capitalism is simply a 'big boy' word for trade.

At 11/3/12 04:13 PM, Profanity wrote: No, it's an economic system of which trade plays a large role.

No, it's trade under a bigger system of distribution, that involves a heavier ownership than those who are typical traders.

Capitalism is to entrepreneur as trade is to girl scouts.

At 11/3/12 04:24 PM, Profanity wrote: Yours is a very weak analogy.

Capitalism:Trade::Oak:Acorn

Capitalism:Trade::Kid:Bully