Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/24/13 01:23 AM, Entice wrote: Really? Then if communism doesn't work explain how the Soviet Union managed to get into space, manufacture thousands of nukes, millions and millions of guns, do most of the work of defeating the Germans in WWII

Because they had tons and tons of gold and stole close to all the money their citizens had. Are you seriously implying that a system where the government takes the majority of our money and does whatever with it is any kind of good idea?

That way of thinking is naive and idealistic. It'd be nice to think that we could all just lay back and trust government to do everything we want for us, but it can't, and it doesn't. Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts, it's a fact.

The reason why capitalism is so insanely superior to every other form of government is because once you privatize everything except for the military and law (and even the military can be mostly privatized no problem) is because no one entity controls all the money. The money is in the hands of all the citizens, not a big government that can do whatever it wants with it. It's called libertarianism, and it's taking over the nation, and it's ultimately gonna save America. In case you really are a plebeian and don't know what libertarianism is, it's basically the belief that government should be as small as possible, and it really should be. It's the belief that no government can tell you how you live your life or how you spend your money. It's the belief that as long as you're not harming or disturbing anyone else, you're free to do it. I'm a hardcore economic libertarian, and as I just said, I very firmly believe that the government should have absolutely zero say in where my money goes, and that's ultimately the right belief, because as I've also said, economics are objective, there's not much subjectivism to it.

and survive for decades despite millions of casualties?

1. The millions of casualties were due to their communist leaders taking all their money, overworking the millions of citizens, and were generally corrupt. Communism is insanely corrupt, more so than monarchy, and it terrifies me to think that there are still people who genuinely think that it can work. It can't.

2. Surviving and thriving are two entirely different things

Face it, communism is the system of survival, communists will take over Russia again and outlast us.

lol, you have no idea what you're talking about, it's kinda cute

At 11/24/13 01:10 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 11/24/13 12:50 AM, captainlolz wrote:

What claims, your only two posts so far have just been a bunch of links

clearly i'm on the opposing side of you saying privatization is cheaper,more efficient,so i posted links to counter your blanket statements

Given your history of absolute stupidity, it's pretty well called for

trying to justify ad hominems

i think your economically ignorant.

*you're

grammar nazi

And no one cares what you think, you're the same person who thinks that if a song doesn't have sheet music, then it's not really music.

ad hominem

http://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/1467934925 http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393345084/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385272115&sr=1-1&keywords=paul+krugman+end+this+depression+now

"These guys wrote books so they're automatically right"

Reductio ad absurdum

Going by your logic, anyone who's ever written a book about something is 100% right about what they wrote about no matter what.

strawman

If someone wrote a book about how dragons were real, would you believe that?

strawman

You're economically ignorant, and follow people who also don't know what they're talking about, please never try to involve yourself with economic politics.

ad hominem,your going to need back up your claims that they don't know they're talking about considering how kaynes,krugman are considered the some of the most influential economists http://econjwatch.org/articles/economics-professors-favorite-economic-thinkers-journals-and-blogs-along-with-party-and-policy-views

At 11/18/13 02:25 AM, Xenomit wrote: As I said earlier in the thread, the private sector (Private companies and industries that are separate from the government entirely) is infinitely more efficient and cheaper than the public sector (The government and any service that is provided by the government).

This is way too generalized to the point of it being not true. Generally even the most ardent libertarians and anarcho-capitalists agree that the public sector is the most efficient provider of essential infrastructure that require eminent domain powers to maintain and build, such as roads and highways, not to mention the can of worms that is emergency services like police and fire. To take a more specific example, electricity, this is also false:

"Borrowing from Richard Rudolph and Scott Ridley's 1986 book, Power Struggle: The Hundred-Year War Over Electricity, Baller showed that when electricity first became available in the 1880s, privately owned utilities marketed "the new technology as synonymous with wealth, power and privilege," lighting large cities, businesses, and the homes of the rich. Electricity also allowed factories to stay open 24 hours a day, and led to the institution of swing shifts. But communities that didn't have electricity couldn't produce as much, and couldn't keep up with urban competitors. Rural communities were left with the choice of forming a government-owned utility or being left in the dark. Even big cities like Detroit built municipal power systems to cut prices and extend service. In response, private utility companies responded with a massive propaganda and misinformation campaign that attacked advocates of municipal power as "un-American," "Bolshevik," and "an unholy alliance of radicals."

But the expansion of electricity, Baller argued, showed that the presence--or even threat--of competition from the public sector is one of the surest ways to secure quality service and reasonable prices from private enterprises delivering critical public services. FDR, he notes, called municipal power systems "a birch rod in the cupboard, to be taken out and used only when the child gets beyond the point where more scolding does any good."

And Roosevelt picked up the birch rod himself. In 1935, he created the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), which gave loans and other help to small towns and farmer cooperatives interested in setting up their own power systems. The REA turned out to be one of the New Deal's most successful programs. Within two years, hundreds of new municipal power utilities were up and running across the country, and within 20 years, virtually all of rural America had electricity, provided either by rural co-ops or big utilities spurred to action by municipal competition. Baller concluded: "The plain, hard truth is that universal electric service would never have developed on a timely basis in the absence of municipally owned electric utilities and rural electric cooperatives"--which still account for more than a quarter of the power in the country today."

Water services that have been bid out to private companies ended up much cleaner, much cheaper, and pipe repairs were rapid.

I really would like to see a source for this. The World Bank has done a study on this and the results were highly mixed, but generally inconclusive. It is also important to note that almost all of the material that shows am improvement in cost-efficiency with a privatized water service companies are in developing countries. In developed countries, the material has been overwhelmingly negative (see: water privatization in Berlin).

Electrical services that have been bid out to private companies dropped in price and power line repairs were much quicker. As I said before, this is because government workers wont fire themselves, but if a company doesn't meet expectations, they get fired and another company takes their place. Private companies that work separately from the government run much better than the government, and that's the nature of things, the nature of capitalism.

The nature of capitalism is to not do anything that makes you less profitable, which means for-profit companies are not comfortable with taking on high risk (unless it benefits them, like what we saw in 2008 with the financial crisis). See my example about the fledgling electricity market for evidence of this fact. Markets lag where there is high risk and not a lot of potential for increased profitability. In these instances it is necessary for the government to provide essential services where the private sector simply cannot perform, just by the virtue of market forces. There is also the fact that private companies cannot print money (legally), nor can they roll their debt over into bonds. The government can run a net operating loss and not have to worry about going bankrupt (at least in the United States).

At 11/17/13 03:05 AM, Makakaov wrote: The sad truth for all you is that facism did more good to this world than bad.

It makes me sad to know if I fall in icy water I'll only be able to have my life saved because the Nazis threw Jewish twins in icy water and tested different ways to save them.

It makes me sadder to know we probably wouldn't know this shit otherwise.

At 11/24/13 01:23 AM, Entice wrote: Face it, communism is the system of survival, communists will take over Russia again and outlast us.

This is actually pretty true. Not really communism though, just statism. Statists can do shit the free market way: look at China. When they have to though, they can take yo shit and redistribute it. Is such a system ideal? No, I don't think any of us would prefer to have our liberties violated. Is statism tougher than non-statism? Yeah, it has the ability to take losses that private corporations won't and it has unlimited capital to invest. It's as libertarian as it likes and as hard ass as it has to be.

I, of course,would prefer to be allowed two children and access to facebook though. Call me shallow.

At 11/17/13 12:49 PM, Xenomit wrote: Anyone who legitimately thinks that any form of socialism is a good idea deserves the kind of world that they're making

There is a massive difference between Marxist economic theory and socialism. Socialism refers to the democratic ownership of capital; the workers control the means of production. You can pass socialist programs into law without having a country that operates entirely on Marxist economics. The United States has many socialist programs, despite being a red-blood capitalist country. There is no reason at all why you can't base a socialist ideology on neoclassical economics.

About 5000 took part in Gothenburg in the antifascist demonstration:

Gothenburg

At 12/19/13 11:48 PM, GameChild214 wrote: About 5000 took part in Gothenburg in the antifascist demonstration:

Go away

Stop bothering us

At 12/19/13 11:51 PM, Xenomit wrote: Go away

Stop bothering us

Don't like the thread then don't post in it

At 12/19/13 11:54 PM, GameChild214 wrote:

At 12/19/13 11:51 PM, Xenomit wrote: Go away

Stop bothering us

Don't like the thread then don't post in it

It's not the thread I have a problem with

It's you

At 12/20/13 12:00 AM, Spooky wrote:

At 12/19/13 11:54 PM, Xenomit wrote: It's not the thread I have a problem with

It's you

Then don't communicate with him?

How about you actually address the statements made against your views a few posts ago instead of just whining?

Because this thread is over a month old and it didn't need to be brought back to life so that he could continue to spew his shit.

It's not a bad thing that he's so extreme in his views, it's just entirely shitty of him to make it the only thing he ever talks about, it's annoying as absolute fucking shit and I know I'm not the only one tired of it.

Middlesbrough - Anti racisim march 1080p HD

Germany against racism! Huge demonstration!

In my area the antifa guys are a lot worse than any fascists [which I don't even see]. They're very gang-like in behavior, and very mean and excluding if you aren't one of them. I remember I saw the band Agnostic Front, and there were antifa guys there and they called me over and started threatening me because of my Mjolnir pendant. [its used sometimes by white supremacists]

At 12/30/13 08:39 PM, Thor wrote: and there were antifa guys there and they called me over and started threatening me because of my Mjolnir pendant. [its used sometimes by white supremacists]

I'm personally not against friendly racial pride, only against racial hatred.

u w0t m8

At 12/30/13 09:02 PM, Sevkat wrote: u w0t m8

u w0t comr8de?

Sounds like your movement lost already. Time to throw in the towel and get adopted by the US.