The failure of the Monitary system

[Watkis]

(DISCLAIMER) i am only offering 4 days of highschool economics to the tabel

1. capitalism in the us works

2.if we dont use money how do we trade with other countries?

3.im pretty sure your not qualified to even make this argument unless your some economist or something

5.if you dont like it leave

Edited September 8, 2010 by Watkis 1st MRB

[Goodwin 1st MRB]

I never said it was perfect. I said it works. Big difference. Works better than any other economical system. "The proof," as my grand ma said, "is in the pudding." That pudding is the fact that there is still a capitalist society and that communists are going capitalist.

At some point those other systems 'worked' too.

Very soon ours will have 'worked', when the next good thing comes along.

[Dillon 1st MRB]

My point is that capitalism(basically the desire to make money) disassociates citizens from acting in their particular country's best interests.

You are confusing a philosophy with a system of economics.

Your last point is probably more convoluted than you intended. The primary role of government is the protection of its citizens. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore the implications that the word protection can mean more than the physical safety from other nations (which the military is here for). A capitalist society could pay a security firm to protect its country. If we offered that security firm trillions of dollars a year to do that, I'd bet they'd do it more efficiently than our current military. Security corporations are made to make money, they would put their dollars to good use. Why don't we do that?

The whole idea of conservatism is to limit the federal government. Abolishing the defense department would do that. However, I'm fairly certain that no conservative here would advocate that. Why?

It isn't about protection. We could pay a company or several different ones to do the same job more efficiently.

A couple of things wrong here. I made the distinction of physical protection. It was intentional.

Secondly, its because mercenaries have been shown to have not worked in history. Rome tried it with several different people and it failed miserably. Athens tried it. The Egyptians tried it. A military cannot be purchased and have it succeed. Because if the government does not hold the military in check, the military will take over. Who would stand in the way of a mercenary army? Given technology today, no one. Its impossible. This is not the 1770's where farmers are as well armed as soldiers. Good luck taking on a tank, my friend.

It's about nationalism. Not many would put the militaristic defense of their nation in any hand but their nation's.

Nor their roads, their education, their emergency services, their infrastructure... the list can go on. Strict conservatism would advocate letting the private sector take care of all of these industries. The postal service is already on the chopping block.

Umm..... study some history. History is filled with examples of countries helping each other. The funny thing is that it is generally out of self-interest. Rome came to the aid of the Nabatean empire because it was better to keep the Persians away. It was also fairly common within India for groups to help each other. If you need more recent examples, you have only to look at Vietnam or North Korea. How about Kuwait? How many nations helped out tiny Kuwait? Were there factors involved? Yes. But none of them are even remotely related to nationalism.

[GMoney BAR]

Nick do you understand politics at all? I don't think you understand the foundations of conservatism, communism, socialism, etc. You're anti capitalism and yet you favor things like this " A capitalist society could pay a security firm to protect its country. If we offered that security firm trillions of dollars a year to do that, I'd bet they'd do it more efficiently than our current military. Security corporations are made to make money, they would put their dollars to good use. Why don't we do that?"

and then you think conservatives stand with this platform "The whole idea of conservatism is to limit the federal government. Abolishing the defense department would do that. However, I'm fairly certain that no conservative here would advocate that. Why?"

and then feel that money isn't needed with things like this " But money as a political movement.... more specifically the desire to make money... (do I have to say capitalism at this point?) that kind of money will turn our citizens against each other (when its profitable) and leave our country in shambles."

Do you have any idea how nations work? Do you have any idea about the political spectrum and the different parties and what they stand for? I feel that you have these fantasy ideas or these ideas have been planted in your head by someone that is inept at all political ends of the spectrum. Tell me, if we paid private companies to handle security operations for our nation then how do we pay them without money? How do we finance their operation? How do we know that they can do a better job than the military. I've seen it first hand, all this private sector security operatives that you want to hire are former military people. The only reason why our military seems like they can't do things perfect is because politics have been involved too much and have tied hands behind their backs.

Is it not every nations goal to make a profit when it comes to economics? Is it not man's natural way to want to make money? Even if you take out money and live off of nature alone, then it will still be man's natural way to have more and more. OH wait, this sounds like something that conservatives fight against with the federal government. Conservatives fight big sized government control over the citizens and favor a strong military: which we have. When the government gets its nose in every little thing, like it is now, then that creates more governmental control which in turn is the platform for socialism. Then if the government wants to create everyone equal and practically eliminate the private sector that is called communism.

[Morton]

Nick I did the folk-sey thing for comical effect. To lighten the thread. But if we need to play hardball... then lets play.

China while under the term communist is no more a communist that say Europe. There is a wealthy elite. A wealthy middle class. Then in western china there is a dirt poor lower class. China has discovered that they need to incorporate some capitalist ideas into the economy. China has pretty much abandoned the way of communist since about the cultural revolution, mainly they started to privatize industry. Which if you know ANYTHING about Marx you would know he wasn't against private property, just private control over capital. So that means they are no longer following the tenets of communism. The Chinese Mao owned every factory and farm in the nation, today well guess what its now a mix of public and private businesses. Schools can also be state-run or private. Which if you haven’t figured it out that the state is not the sole controller of “capital” hence nick, CHINA IS NOT A TRUE COMMUNIST NATION. Really just in name.

Politically it’s a communist nation. But regional leaders are judged based guess what, on economical growth, a very capitalist idea.

Oh and just for kicks here are some links with this information.

Link 1

Link 2

So nick, maybe you should do a little research before you speak next time. And maybe not be so quick to insult someone for being from the south.

Moving on Nick.

A capitalist society is simply one where the means for production are privately owned. Rather than by a centralized government. [see above to see how china fits the capitalist role more than the communist] Believe it or not the west has been capitalist since the demise of Feudalism. Now its mixed with other economical ideas but its still a majority capitalism.

Next,

Really nick, do you have to ask for example of countries going from communist to capitalist. Well One was one you probably heard of, if you paid attention in history class, Russia. And as I explained above, China.

So with the top Economies in the world are Capitalists. Oh and India is projected to be the fastest growing economy by 2015. Another capitalist nation nick. Looks like we are running out of nations, Lets see, North Korea, one of the shittest nations ever. That’s a shining example of communism there nick.

Now for health care,

It would depend in Obama got re-elected in 2012, seeing as how the health care bill doesn’t go into effect until 2014. And if it is found constitutional or not. Too many variables.

See what happens when your an ass. People are asses back. So Nick, go back to your fantasy world, were there is no greed or ambition and we all live on a collective. While the rest of us live here, in the real world.

Thank you

Nick

Or did you pick me out for hating on Communism the most?

Pretty sure I will be gettign his wrath too.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Morton 1st MRB

[K. Swartz 1st MRB]

I wont work.

even Castro says so, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_..._fidel_castro_5

[nick.cameo]

Now I'm not offended, but I have to wonder... Why did you use my name as the example name? Sure, I like Capitalism. But if L.A. offers me a job on their police force, I'm sure as hell not going no matter the pay. I like my quiet town, with its lack of real crime and organized gangs!

Or did you pick me out for hating on Communism the most?

You seemed to be the most vocal proponent of capitalism, so I drew the quick analogy.

[nick.cameo]

You are confusing a philosophy with a system of economics.

A couple of things wrong here. I made the distinction of physical protection. It was intentional.

Secondly, its because mercenaries have been shown to have not worked in history. Rome tried it with several different people and it failed miserably. Athens tried it. The Egyptians tried it. A military cannot be purchased and have it succeed. Because if the government does not hold the military in check, the military will take over. Who would stand in the way of a mercenary army? Given technology today, no one. Its impossible. This is not the 1770's where farmers are as well armed as soldiers. Good luck taking on a tank, my friend.

Umm..... study some history. History is filled with examples of countries helping each other. The funny thing is that it is generally out of self-interest. Rome came to the aid of the Nabatean empire because it was better to keep the Persians away. It was also fairly common within India for groups to help each other. If you need more recent examples, you have only to look at Vietnam or North Korea. How about Kuwait? How many nations helped out tiny Kuwait? Were there factors involved? Yes. But none of them are even remotely related to nationalism.

Capitalism is both a system of economics and a philosophy. You refute the mercenary army with examples from around the time of christ.

Study some history? REEEEEAAAALLLY???? Your straw men are burning.

We saved Kuwait. yes i agree, what are you trying to prove? We can help a country defend itself.

Doesn't change the fact that countries rely on their own citizens for their military.

[nick.cameo]

Nick I did the folk-sey thing for comical effect. To lighten the thread. But if we need to play hardball... then lets play.

China while under the term communist is no more a communist that say Europe. There is a wealthy elite. A wealthy middle class. Then in western china there is a dirt poor lower class. China has discovered that they need to incorporate some capitalist ideas into the economy. China has pretty much abandoned the way of communist since about the cultural revolution, mainly they started to privatize industry. Which if you know ANYTHING about Marx you would know he wasn't against private property, just private control over capital. So that means they are no longer following the tenets of communism. The Chinese Mao owned every factory and farm in the nation, today well guess what its now a mix of public and private businesses. Schools can also be state-run or private. Which if you haven’t figured it out that the state is not the sole controller of “capital” hence nick, CHINA IS NOT A TRUE COMMUNIST NATION. Really just in name.

Politically it’s a communist nation. But regional leaders are judged based guess what, on economical growth, a very capitalist idea.

Oh and just for kicks here are some links with this information.

Link 1

Link 2

So nick, maybe you should do a little research before you speak next time. And maybe not be so quick to insult someone for being from the south.

Moving on Nick.

A capitalist society is simply one where the means for production are privately owned. Rather than by a centralized government. [see above to see how china fits the capitalist role more than the communist] Believe it or not the west has been capitalist since the demise of Feudalism. Now its mixed with other economical ideas but its still a majority capitalism.

Next,

Really nick, do you have to ask for example of countries going from communist to capitalist. Well One was one you probably heard of, if you paid attention in history class, Russia. And as I explained above, China.

So with the top Economies in the world are Capitalists. Oh and India is projected to be the fastest growing economy by 2015. Another capitalist nation nick. Looks like we are running out of nations, Lets see, North Korea, one of the shittest nations ever. That’s a shining example of communism there nick.

Now for health care,

It would depend in Obama got re-elected in 2012, seeing as how the health care bill doesn’t go into effect until 2014. And if it is found constitutional or not. Too many variables.

See what happens when your an ass. People are asses back. So Nick, go back to your fantasy world, were there is no greed or ambition and we all live on a collective. While the rest of us live here, in the real world.

Thank you

Nick

Pretty sure I will be gettign his wrath too.

As you put words in my mouth and build little arguments that just distract from my argument to counter it, you tell ME to go to school. Critical Thinking 101. But I'll play along.

I insulted you for being from the south? I have no idea where you are from and I haven't personally attacked you at all, but I do wish I could say the same about you, Morton

Please don't link random articles with titles like "Is china communist? NO" and ranging a half decade back. It doesn't do much for whatever argument you are making, morton.

Using your definition of capitalism "A capitalist society is simply one where the means for production are privately owned. Rather than by a centralized government." what do you call a country that has a primarily (over 50%) centrally planned industry?

That means the majority of a country's industry is NOT privately owned.

I made the point before, but I'll make it again.

Money as a currency isn't bad. The primary desire to make money is bad; for individuals, communities and society in general. Everyone here knows that true communism is silly and doesn't work, but it seems that some people may not know that pure capitalism can be worse.

[nick.cameo]

Nick do you understand politics at all? I don't think you understand the foundations of conservatism, communism, socialism, etc. You're anti capitalism and yet you favor things like this " A capitalist society could pay a security firm to protect its country. If we offered that security firm trillions of dollars a year to do that, I'd bet they'd do it more efficiently than our current military. Security corporations are made to make money, they would put their dollars to good use. Why don't we do that?"

and then you think conservatives stand with this platform "The whole idea of conservatism is to limit the federal government. Abolishing the defense department would do that. However, I'm fairly certain that no conservative here would advocate that. Why?"

and then feel that money isn't needed with things like this " But money as a political movement.... more specifically the desire to make money... (do I have to say capitalism at this point?) that kind of money will turn our citizens against each other (when its profitable) and leave our country in shambles."

Do you have any idea how nations work? Do you have any idea about the political spectrum and the different parties and what they stand for? I feel that you have these fantasy ideas or these ideas have been planted in your head by someone that is inept at all political ends of the spectrum. Tell me, if we paid private companies to handle security operations for our nation then how do we pay them without money? How do we finance their operation? How do we know that they can do a better job than the military. I've seen it first hand, all this private sector security operatives that you want to hire are former military people. The only reason why our military seems like they can't do things perfect is because politics have been involved too much and have tied hands behind their backs.

Is it not every nations goal to make a profit when it comes to economics? Is it not man's natural way to want to make money? Even if you take out money and live off of nature alone, then it will still be man's natural way to have more and more. OH wait, this sounds like something that conservatives fight against with the federal government. Conservatives fight big sized government control over the citizens and favor a strong military: which we have. When the government gets its nose in every little thing, like it is now, then that creates more governmental control which in turn is the platform for socialism. Then if the government wants to create everyone equal and practically eliminate the private sector that is called communism.

I think you missed my point. I said, in a a true capitalist society, national security would be privatized. And I don't like the idea of that. And again, MONEY AS CURRENCY = WIN.

I don't think man is inherently greedy. I'd replace money as the primary incentive though. If money is all that drives us what are we but mercenaries?

I'm not advocating the idea of "everyone equal" in a spread the wealth sort of way.. there are things not everyone can have. But I do think everyone is created equal and should have equal opportunities. Especially in terms of education.

But yea, I think you just misunderstood an argument so I won't comment on that political spectrum deal.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

I said, in a a true capitalist society,

You're giving off a very small window to work with. I'm not seeing much a point to this if you're emphasizing the "true capitalist" society. No nation has ever had that extreme of a capitalist ideology. So, really anything said about it is pure speculation. I'm not disagreeing with you, I think it would be a bad idea as well. What I am saying, is that Capitalism (to be more specific capitalism in the U.S.) is the best system to date. Sure there are places where it's not fair, but life isn't fair. I won't preach about it being perfect, as it obviously is not. But I also do not abide by criticisms of the system that highlight these unfair scenarios and slippery slope (another logical fallacy for you) right to capitalism has failed.

No one economic policy has been 100% pure to its roots, except possibly Communism or Fascism. But, both of those are the extremes. Now supposedly Fascism is a far-right policy, I won't go into why I disagree with that here, but suffice to say fascism is not a viable economic solution. All I saw presented by the original poster was Communism without money which seems off. To go back to Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Now I isn't some big-city Koran-burning pastor, but I feel as though the Bible teaches some good stuff.

[Morton]

Nick,

I post articles on how China is becoming a Capitalist nation and you say "meh its 4 years old, way to old to matter." If you know any thing about economics you would realize it takes YEARS to see a change, meaning the articles that list valid points on why China is not a communist nation. But since 4 years is so old here is a direct quote from CIA world Fact book. UPDATED 30AUG2010, a scant 10 days ago.

China's economy during the past 30 years has changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade to a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy.

Is that recent enough for you?

Your post directed at me asked a series of questions. I answered them. You then accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Which I didn't.

About the Health insurance. It is not final. Meaning that at any time can it be taken off the books. With the current trend in Obama's approval ratting he will be voted out of office. And with the swing from Democrat to Republican that is projected, the bill will be overturned. Thats if the Supreme Court doesn't rule that Congress overstepped its powers. So like I said, Too many variables to consider. And come to think of it, show me some proof that with the healthcare bill passing that the US will own 51% of Capital in the US. Then I will tell you what I believe on the issue.

Now I will concur that the system is not perfect. But is it really so bad to want to earn money. The drive to be ambitious is what made humans what they are today. You think any inventor wanted to invent something just for fun? No! He invented it to make money. Wanting to make money is not evil. Its how you do it that can be considered evil.

And by your second post I will concur you didn't mean to insult anyone.

@Kirk. I believe that Fascism and Communism are almost the same. The only difference is that fascism is NATIONALISTIC and Communism is GLOBALISTIC [sp?]

Edited September 9, 2010 by Morton 1st MRB

[Ford 1st MRB]

I don't think man is inherently greedy.

I would disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

How can anyone believe man is not inherently greedy? It's basic human nature to be greedy, even if you don't agree. You have the urge, just as everyone else does, even if you don't think you do. As a man, which I'm assuming by your name you are, do you not have the desire to spread your seed with as many women (or men if you're into that) as possible? Greed. Do you want to try and survive with the bare necessities or would you like to live comfortably? Greed. It takes on many forms, not just wanting to have more and more money.

It's there, whether you see it or not, I assure you it is a basic human emotion. Some just have it more than others. Some know how to deal with it more than others.

Edited September 9, 2010 by FŁØß؆ ßÄЯ

[Dillon 1st MRB]

Capitalism is both a system of economics and a philosophy. You refute the mercenary army with examples from around the time of christ.

Study some history? REEEEEAAAALLLY???? Your straw men are burning.

We saved Kuwait. yes i agree, what are you trying to prove? We can help a country defend itself.

Doesn't change the fact that countries rely on their own citizens for their military.

How about the Swiss Mercenaries of the 1600's? Or the Hessians of 1780-1820? Mercenaries have never worked out.

And as for saving Kuwait, your premise was that countries don't fight for other countries.

[nick.cameo]

How about the Swiss Mercenaries of the 1600's? Or the Hessians of 1780-1820? Mercenaries have never worked out.

And as for saving Kuwait, your premise was that countries don't fight for other countries.

That was never my premise.

My premise was, for that particular point, that a national army is made up of national citizens. We supplement our forces with "mercenaries" as did the british with the hessians.

[GMoney BAR]

Alright Nick. The way you were writing things was confusing but I feel that Kirk is right with his reply to yours. When you talk of a true capitalistic society then no nation has ever had that and then it's all just speculation and it seems like a devil advocate argument instead of actual debate.

[nick.cameo]

Nick,

I post articles on how China is becoming a Capitalist nation and you say "meh its 4 years old, way to old to matter." If you know any thing about economics you would realize it takes YEARS to see a change, meaning the articles that list valid points on why China is not a communist nation. But since 4 years is so old here is a direct quote from CIA world Fact book. UPDATED 30AUG2010, a scant 10 days ago. Is that recent enough for you?

Your post directed at me asked a series of questions. I answered them. You then accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Which I didn't.

About the Health insurance. It is not final. Meaning that at any time can it be taken off the books. With the current trend in Obama's approval ratting he will be voted out of office. And with the swing from Democrat to Republican that is projected, the bill will be overturned. Thats if the Supreme Court doesn't rule that Congress overstepped its powers. So like I said, Too many variables to consider. And come to think of it, show me some proof that with the healthcare bill passing that the US will own 51% of Capital in the US. Then I will tell you what I believe on the issue.

Now I will concur that the system is not perfect. But is it really so bad to want to earn money. The drive to be ambitious is what made humans what they are today. You think any inventor wanted to invent something just for fun? No! He invented it to make money. Wanting to make money is not evil. Its how you do it that can be considered evil.

And by your second post I will concur you didn't mean to insult anyone.

@Kirk. I believe that Fascism and Communism are almost the same. The only difference is that fascism is NATIONALISTIC and Communism is GLOBALISTIC [sp?]

My point was that you randomly picked out articles that seemed to prove your point. When in fact, upon reading they don't support it very strongly. From the more recent article:

"the Chinese government still controls major aspects of the economy and society. For example, just about every Chinese bank is state-owned, so the government decides which businesses and individuals will get the most favorable loans. The domestic media are entirely state-owned as well and offer uniformly favorable political coverage. Perhaps the biggest vestige of classical communism is the fact that every square inch of land in the country still belongs to the government. (People and businesses can own houses and other property.)

Politically, China is as Communist as ever. The country operates under the highly centralized, single-party rule of the Communist Party. Every region, whether it's a province or a city, has two sets of leadership: local government functionaries and Communist Party officials. While there is overlap between the two groups—after all, government workers must be Communist Party members—the top local government leader must always answer to the top party leader. The governor of a province might make day-to-day decisions about filling potholes and snow removal, but the party official controls macro decisions like which businesses get state money and prime real estate. "

That excerpt seems to say that China is still deserving of the communist name, regardless of the partial privatization.

[Dillon 1st MRB]

That was never my premise.

My premise was, for that particular point, that a national army is made up of national citizens. We supplement our forces with "mercenaries" as did the british with the hessians.

Then why bring up that my prior examples were from 2000 years ago?

Good lord, take a logic or rhetoric class.

[nick.cameo]

You're giving off a very small window to work with. I'm not seeing much a point to this if you're emphasizing the "true capitalist" society. No nation has ever had that extreme of a capitalist ideology. So, really anything said about it is pure speculation. I'm not disagreeing with you, I think it would be a bad idea as well. What I am saying, is that Capitalism (to be more specific capitalism in the U.S.) is the best system to date. Sure there are places where it's not fair, but life isn't fair. I won't preach about it being perfect, as it obviously is not. But I also do not abide by criticisms of the system that highlight these unfair scenarios and slippery slope (another logical fallacy for you) right to capitalism has failed.

No one economic policy has been 100% pure to its roots, except possibly Communism or Fascism. But, both of those are the extremes. Now supposedly Fascism is a far-right policy, I won't go into why I disagree with that here, but suffice to say fascism is not a viable economic solution. All I saw presented by the original poster was Communism without money which seems off. To go back to Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Now I isn't some big-city Koran-burning pastor, but I feel as though the Bible teaches some good stuff.

Well, I'll applaud you for being able to actually identify my argument, which none of the others could grasp even though they were happy to tell ME to take a class. Yes, it's a small window. Yes, it hasn't ever happened so it is speculation. Just because this is hypothetical doesn't mean we can't infer general principles which can be applied to real life.

But enough applause, your use of the slippery slope logical fallacy is completely wrong. My pure capitalism argument is the complete opposite of a slippery slope, or at best (for you) the very end of a slippery slope argument.

And as the bible says the love of money is the root of evil, so I say that the love of money (desire to make money as a primary motivator) is a bad ecnonomic and political philosophy.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Well, I'll applaud you for being able to actually identify my argument, which none of the others could grasp even though they were happy to tell ME to take a class. Yes, it's a small window. Yes, it hasn't ever happened so it is speculation. Just because this is hypothetical doesn't mean we can't infer general principles which can be applied to real life.

But enough applause, your use of the slippery slope logical fallacy is completely wrong. My pure capitalism argument is the complete opposite of a slippery slope, or at best (for you) the very end of a slippery slope argument.

And as the bible says the love of money is the root of evil, so I say that the love of money (desire to make money as a primary motivator) is a bad ecnonomic and political philosophy.

It is quite wonderful that you assumed my use of the slippery slope was a referral to you, quite astonishing. For if you had pulled out a little ways, I was referring to the original post. (In which Lamey did indeed preform a slippery slope) More or less, I was justifying myself posting in this thread to begin with. But, it is interesting that you assume I was referring to your argument.

Hubris is indeed the most deadly of the seven sins.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Kirkendall 1st MRB

[Morton]

Nick,

I will restate my argument again.

In Communism the state will own all the Capital. That is a key point Marx makes in his Communist Manifesto. Marx never said anything about not being able to own private property, that was added later.

China has allow PRIVATE (as in non-state) that owns Capital.

China cannot be communist due to this. They have a hybrid system of Capitalism and Communism.

Now if you look at the definition of Communism.

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labor and private property

Communal Ownership: NO

No Private Property: NO

Classless society: NO

Still aiming for the above: NO

Looking at these two difinitions. Plus my privious sources. One can see that China is not Communist.

It is still communist in name. I will say that. But its more of the dictator side than the economical side.

And about the Bible. That's very folksy of you man, starting to sound like Palin. Lets leave God out of politics okay.

[GMoney BAR]

Just for all the gunslingers in here and it kinda fits into what the debate is. I like how the person who started this topic isn't even debating it anymore.

Clicky Clicky

"The WEF said America slipped in the ranking due to a build-up in U.S. macroeconomic imbalances, a weakening of the country's public and private institutions and concerns about the state of its financial markets." ENOUGH SAID!

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Lets leave God out of politics okay.

Heheheheheheheheheh

Good luck with that.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Kirkendall 1st MRB

[Lamey]

I like how the person who started this topic isn't even debating it anymore.

I was proven wrong and admitted it in my last post. Although i still do not agree with the current monetary system and think it is deeply flawed man has yet to come up with a better one. That is what the topic was supposed to be about.

I got a amazing video's that proves if china is a communist or capitalist state or not i just am not good with links like you fella's is.

I will say on my personal opinion of China that IT IS COMMUNIST It controls everything but has an amazingly hybrid economy.

Ask someone who is from China and see their opinion too, my friends say its very much communist but in a way is no different from our lives here.

Documentary's on China