It's all about freedom. Free the markets and you free the people. Free the people and you free the markets.

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwH3Xr6uyG0

That video was perfect. Capitalism is freedom. Free the market and free the people. Free the people and free the market.

imgflip.com/i/90qmh4
I know why socialists get so confused about “free market economics “=

Did they neglect the fact that the return to free market policies has left millennials earning less than their parents? Or multinationals trading domestic labor for cheap, foreign labor?

Yes it is always important that millennials earn more money than their parents. Businesses always work better when those with the least experience get paid more than those with the most experience, said no sane person ever!!!

What planet are you from? On this planet merit is rewarded. You have to work to earn what you get and the longer and better you work at it the more you will be rewarded.

"Or multinationals trading domestic labor for cheap, foreign labor?" How is socialism or communism going to fix that? Oh I know. They'll take over the world and then they will make everyone labor "cheap". But hey! We'll all be equal. Equally poor. We'll except for our overlords in government.

So in Marxistland to the forbid you to read actual history? They must because they want you to have blinders on while they brainwash you. Because if you looked around at the real world and saw that every single time Marxism has been tried it has failed. And not just a little bit of failure but colossal failure. It is always the same, the people starve to death while the oligarchs live in luxury until they drain the last bit of wealth from the nation. EVERYTIME!!!!!!! Free Market economics combined with individual liberty and morality has ALWAYS lifted people out of poverty. People don't see it because it doesn't happen that often. Because people like you are convinced my the slave makers that freedom is a bad thing.

The problem with your “reward” and “merit” concept is that wages have stagnated since the 1970s and have not followed increasing productivity. Clearly capital is not rewarding labor accordingly. Free market policies have attacked labor foundations and have allowed greater wealth gaps between the rich and the poor, and this indeed throws people into poverty (especially when the free market economy fails every 4-7 years and must be bailed out).

Labor should own all that it produces. They produce all the wealth we enjoy in the world, yet they are the worst off. Does that seem fair or rational to you?

Communism would fix the problem of multinationals by not placing profit over people and their communities, and rather than being exploited by capital we produce according to our needs, on our own terms and by our own abilities.

Not that I consider them completely communist, but the USSR was once a world superpower, right beside the capitalist United States. And China currently has the fastest growing economy in the world.

I do not think freedom is a bad thing. You literally don’t know who you’re talking to. I’m an anarchist. I think we are free when we become independent from bosses and masters, own our workplaces democratically and are free to live our lives uninfluenced by state violence and according to our own ideals and aspirations.

Ya know.... I need to stop talking pie-in-the-sky dreams because they are never going to happen. I should try to make what we have the least painful.

There are some things though that still are just not right. Like this notion of profits over people. Each business owner or CEO is a person. They have their own motivations for their actions. Some are motivated by greed but greed alone cannot build a business. Some just don't want to ever be poor again.

But just as there are many reasons why people go into business there are different ways they have of treating their employees. In other words there are a whole lot of businesses who do not operate on the profits over people ideology. In fact most don't.

You're right I don't always remember who I'm talking to. That's cause my memory is crap.

I do remember talking to you before but I don't remember what it was.

You must be one of the anarcho-communist that I hear about. That always sounded like such a contradiction in terms if by communist you mean Marx's definition.

I am not an anarchist but I respect the ones who understand freedom and the value of the individual. If I were to support any type of anarchy it would be anarcho-capital. But I am a Constitutionalist. I firmly believe in the goals and ideals of our founding fathers and the liberty they tried so hard to pass on to us.

But too many people was to rule others and be ruled by others. To quote Rush (the band, not Limbaugh) "I will choose free will".

All businesses have one pursuit, and it is not to satisfy the needs and meet the demands of those they employ. Every business pursues profit. If a business does not profit, it cannot last. Profit is made from the creations of the working class (it is essentially ‘unpaid labor’)

Anarcho-communism is not considered to be Marxist, there is a greater understanding of this when looking at the history of the First International, and the split between Marx and Bakunin, state socialists and anarchists. Marx of course did not invent communism, and anarchists do consider a lot of his work (we particularly stress the idea of producing according to ability, and giving according to need) but entirely reject the notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the idea that a transition state is necessary to realize stateless communism.

The founders loathed democracy and even Madison admitted the United States Constitution is established to maintain the interests of the “opulent few”, and protect them against the majority. This does not translate to freedom for me, nor does capitalism, of course.

electricity is 50 cents a gallon. why do conservatives subsidize gas/war?

We don't. Trump got us off of foreign oil and Biden put us right back to where we were before Trump and then he dropped bombs on Syria. Obama said he would get us out of the Middle-East within his first year as president. Instead he increased troop levels and got us involved in more skirmishes all over the Middle-East. Obama got more soldiers killed in his first term then Bush did in the 6 years he presided over the war.

Excluding the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, The Spanish-American War and the 2 Middle-East wars Democrats have been responsible for getting us into every war this nation has fought. And for the most part it has been a Republican who got us out of those Democrat wars.

So what you need to ask yourself is why are Democrats so war happy? Democrats created the Military Industrial Complex that (Republican) President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about.

You talk a good game about how you are opposed to war but it is all a facade. You guys love war.

Oh and BTW Obama funded and armed ISIS.

MIC was borne out of the Cold War, silly.

Oil wars happened because we were wasting it.

Confederates were conservatives - change my mind.

So why are conservatives against EVs and efficiency again?

Prior to the Progressive era of the early 20th century the definitions of liberal and conservatives were opposite of what they are are now. Progressives wanted to hide behind the definition of liberal because it was more positive so they confiscated the name.

The word liberal comes from the same root as liberty. It used to mean someone who was for individual liberty. Now it is the polar opposite.

The majority of the nation at the time of the Civil War were more classical liberal. The Republicans and Democrats were not separated by conservative vs liberal. The Republican party was formed to oppose slavery. One could say they were more (classical) liberal than the Democrat party who defended slavery. And clearly slavery is anti-liberty, much like the modern definition of liberal.

A classical conservative believed that mankind was basically bad and required a strong government to control him. A classical liberal believed that mankind was basically good and barely needed a government at all. The founding fathers where classical liberals and created a government that was very limited and small. Modern liberals may or may not think mankind is good or bad but they believe in a very large, powerful government that takes care of everyone and also controls everyone. Modern conservatives very from not a whole lot of difference between them and modern liberals to returning back to the original size and scope of the government. Libertarians are even more pro-freedom than conservatives.

Conservatives are not against EV's. They have no problem with any so-called green energy. What we have a problem with is how liberals want to eliminate the much more economical sources of energy when solar and wind cannot even come close to meeting our current demands.

Plus the electricity that is produced to charge EV's comes from coal, nuclear or hydroelectric. The left is opposed to all three of those forms of energy.

I fear that Biden, Kamala or some other idiot Democrat is just going to write an executive order or pass a law to complete shut down all forms of energy production that the left hates. That will send us back into the dark ages. None of them seemed to have any grasp of reality when it comes to energy production, especially AOC.

The first 4 paragraphs I can agree with.

But the last paragraphs, don't worry, good news, solar+storage is now the cheapest form of electricity, even in "cold" climates (winter sun stronger closer to poles), but even the left has a hard time announcing it because they are so fixated on climate and felt for so long that "it shouldn't be about the money" when it was expensive and needed work to drop prices that now they can't wake up and see the numbers are in their FAVOR.

Wind is tied with coal and falling. Plus storage on site before it enters the grid, wind is even cheaper than coal. Coal is only going UP in price to meet tighter pollution controls.

Nuclear is "cheap" only at generation level, but could never survive without government self insurance and waste storage because the private market would never insure it. If PI would, it wouldn't be cost effective for insurance or waste storage nor could the storage be certified safe forever by a private company that can walk away.

Nuclear only happened because of cold war nuke defense research trickle down to private industry, so the whole thing is totally subsidized.

This paints fossil and nuke (and hydrogen) into a corner where it belongs, not because it's not "liberal" but because when you follow the money ALL the way upstream, they don't work.

Don't worry, there will be plenty of natural gas plants to feather in and out of renewable/storage baseload. Storage isn't just batteries which are dropping in price, there's mechanical storage, ice, etc. It's very interesting. And V2G/V2H is storage AND backup power.

Efficiency saves 75% of all energy that's currently wasted - the same as removing 75% of all power plants (or not building new ones). But it's going to take a long time and a lot of attrition to get there so no worries. PassiveHouse is THE building standard to go for, even in commercial buildings, not LEED, because it's easy. PH reduced 90% of HVAC cost for only 5% more construction costs.

Rocky Mountain Institute is neither liberal nor conservative. Maybe it's a little "libertarian" but basically focuses on TRUE costs of energy to reduce GHG and fee/bates to reward the good and punish the bad on a 1:1 ratio when possible.

who?