Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 9th, 2014 #41
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
The problem with capitalism is businesses large enough to influence society rarely have any higher or social goal other than giving people a temporary high and turning a profit.
That's unfair and inaccurate. Businesses give people what they actually want. Not what you think they ought to want. Business is just a way to connect people with good and services they want or need at a price that's roughly mutually painful/acceptable. It doesn't pretend to be more. Government does - but it offers less. It's the idealists who are generally useless or destructive to humanity; it's the people who concentrate on supplying, say, lumber or screws or light bulbs that are a little bit better quality or a little bit lower price who actually benefit humanity in the real world. I say generally. Sometimes idealists do create good things. Generally, they don't. Generally they interfere with good things. Idealists are people who have not the slightest concept of how difficult it is to do any serious thing, because they have never actually worked in business. So production to them is nothing, all they care about is their idea of a more equitable distribution. That's what's beautiful about the market - we don't have to live by some jew's idea of what's fair, we can buy and sell what we like, and the people supplying us will pay attention and adapt their offerings accordingly. As long as there's no force involved, it works well. Regulation is force. When the regulators step in, that's when you get monopolies and political distortion, in the form of artificially limited offerings or forced-purchasing, as in the ideas in school textbooks or the limitations on buying and selling medical products and advice.

Quote:
There are already talks and pettitions for Disney to create an obese disney princess:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/elissa-san...be-overweight/

Fat chicks want to see themselves being swept away by the handsome, wealthy Prince. With half of America's children being overweight, what's stopping them from a profit point of view? "Real" bodies (...of American women) are what people are willing to pay to see, as it makes them temporarily feel good, and the healthy girls who see it will think being fat is normal or acceptable and fall into the trap as well.
That's just leftist ideology. Disney was taken over by jews many years ago; their last several princesses have been colored, at least the last several before Frozen. Of course the feminists go on and on about what they'd like to see...if it were left up to ordinary people, most of them are happy with the traditional blonde and blue-eyed princess. They don't mind other types, but they wouldn't push for it ideologically as the leftists do.

Quote:
End result of consumer rule: a whole nation of infantile fat chicks expecting a handsome, wealthy Prince.
Um...no. The market isn't pushing for fat princesses, that's the leftists. The feminists. Even they care less about fat than about ethnicity. The market is perfectly happy with the Grimm-standard princess. But obviously feminists have closer connections to the jews running Disney than the average consumer does, and jews always put politics ahead of profits in media, which certainly includes Hollywood.

Quote:
Compare that to a Fascist government that would, instead, celebrate physical exercise and fill the void people have in their gut with something of spiritual substance-ideals and goals-instead of ice cream and twinkies.
Yeah, maybe they could federally enforce Hitler's vegetarianism on everybody, that would surely result in serious weight loss.

Your urge to boss people around is noted. This is one of the deepest problems with white politics - there isn't any agreement on how whites should live among themselves. You want a regimented society, and many feel the way you do, and I want a free society, and many feel the way I do.

Quote:
End result: a society full of people who are as healthy and enlightened as they can be.

The women of Nationalsocialist Germany:


The women created by the free market of Ameri-kwa:

Cherry-picking. You could find legions of fit AmeriKwans and communist Chinese, if you wanted to. Pretty much every advance in working out and diet has come from the free United States, as far as I know. I never heard of any idea from Europe except kettle bells. Germany had food rationing. It was absolutely miserable and onerous for most - not for the connected party insiders, though. They had whatever they wanted. That's how that stuff always ends up, the government class lives high off the hog, and the people get what's left over. No thanks.

It was the US government that set up the FDA and promoted, all through my public-school childhood, the notion of the food pyramid in which the bulk of the diet was supposed to be not meat but grains/cereal which we now know to be the cause of obesity and these various chronic diseases. The government is never on the side of the people; at best it's a necessary expedient to deal with the tiny number of problems that truly are collective rather than personal-moral-individual problems.

I don't see any difference between your faith in government and a christian's faith in Jesus. There's no evidence to support either one; in fact, the evidence runs entirely the other way.
 
Old February 12th, 2014 #42
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber
Default

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, and you see if I'm totally off base.

Government put man on the moon, discovered America (who do you think funded the seminal expeditions?), created the internet, created nuclear power, created the airline industry, imposed the highway system that makes interstate commerce possible, etc. While full of energetic participants, the "free" market, to the extent it ever exists, is not more than a field of push-cart pedlars who commercialize (and therefore most efficiently and justly distribute) the prior achievements of the public sector.

The only important thing government couldn't do is turn niggers into people. It spent many billions, maybe even trillions, on that project. This was a colossal waste of money and effort. That's probably why most people post-1960s respond to anti-government rhetoric, not because they buy the idea that the businesspeople they personally know are self-made men and women.

There was never any division between "public sector" and "private sector"; the idea of such a division is a bizarre ideological novelty. Human activity has always been effected with the participation and funding of government, be it a monarchy, an oligarchy, or whatever. No artist, no scientist, no technologist, no industrialist of significance was a "free-marketer": all relied on the public trough or were connected to the government on a significant level (e.g., they came from a family that made its money fundamentally in politics or by government favor). Every major businessman has acquired his standing in the market by the muscle of government action, whether by incorporating or by buying tech developed in government labs, etc.

The "pure" free-marketer – a person seemingly not undergirt by government at all, as far as that's possible - is that Sham-Wow guy, or Norman Vincent Peale, or patent-medicine salesmen. (Even many successful criminals rely on government's criminalizing stuff, like liquor during Prohibition - without government, even some the baddest outlaws would be nobody.)

The only question is: what's the best philosophy for government – to move ahead as it used to do, or to throw money at defectives? Progress or egalitarianism? We fell into a slough of egalitarianism during the past 100 years (in America during the past 50). Human effort was significantly misdirected. The solution is not to dynamite civilization and return to the Dark Ages, but to see to it that the state returns to its senses. Getting rid of the jews would be the principal step to that solution.
__________________
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action
 
Old April 6th, 2014 #43
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

State Department Not Totally Sure Where it Spent Six Billion Dollars

http://gawker.com/state-department-n...-bi-1559549009
 
Old October 25th, 2014 #44
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[amazon loses 174m. if this were a government project, it would be protected for decades, and no competition with this failed phone would be allowed. government is rape. private business is seduction. the difference is you can say no to seduction.]

Amazon Fire Phone Fizzles
http://www.modernreaders.com/amazon-.../lorenzo-tanos
 
Old November 3rd, 2014 #45
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Capitalism involves failure. Governments never fail because they don't need to appeal to anyone. They get their funding from taxes taken at gunpoint.

Red Lobster menu items fail, prompting revisions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mped-menu.html
 
Old December 4th, 2014 #46
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[came across this in deadspin comments]

I've got a car math story for you.

Periodically different teams of specialists from my hospital will need to take road trips to the VA hospital in a neighboring city for team conferences. (This could probably be done over the phone or with a videoconferencing system, but then how would the government waste time and money?) There is one team in my building that is eleven post-menopausal women who hate each other and one poor hapless bastard. The last time they needed to take three government-issued vans for a short road trip turned into the most insane logic puzzle I've ever seen. The decision making process about who rides in what car literally took two and a half hours in the parking lot, and the actual drive only took one! [perfect microcosm of government, and people want this crew of clowns running a 'health system' for us]

It was like that river crossing puzzle with the fox, goose, and beans except instead it's just a collection of women who hate each other and one guy who doesn't care which car he's in and just wants to GO, NOW. The rest of us were watching this clusterfuck out one of the third story windows and taking bets on when he would just snap and drive off alone.

(Names changed, obviously.) Betty hates Veronica, won't ride in a car with her. Veronica has no idea and has no problem with Betty but can't stand Amy and refuses to be in a car with her. Amy is willing to ride with Lucy as long as she doesn't have to drive because she has allergy attacks sometimes and is worried she will sneeze and run off the road. Lucy won't ride in a car that contains anyone whose name ends in a vowel, which you may have noticed is all we have so far. We do have Taylor but Taylor will only ride if she gets to ride with Amy so they can gossip about what a cunt Lucy is, and Amy can't ride with Lucy. Janet will only go in any car if she gets to drive. No one wants to be in a car Janet's crazy ass is driving. Meanwhile Dave is very clearly in the early stages of a nervous breakdown.

The great thing was they're all so WASP-y and passive aggressive that none of them will actually SAY "I'd prefer not to ride with you, I hate you" so instead they keep coming up with increasingly insane reasons why the first 500 or so car configurations they've tried just won't work. After a while Dave just starts beating his head against the side of one van, which none of them seem to think is odd.
415Reply
 
Old December 5th, 2014 #47
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

You act as if the government sector and private sector are at odds. The reason the US government is so shitty is precisely because it's run by the private sector.

When Americans go to Canada, which has a public health system, to buy their medication because its dirt cheap, the private sector gets "our" government to make that illegal.

Most of the time, governments become corrupt thanks to unscrupulous people in the private sector not being cracked down on before it's too late, E.G., De Medici Venice, USA, French Revolution, Cromwell's Britain. The establishment of democracy or enlightenment-influenced republican systems often leads to rule by the merchant class (the path to Jewish power), and thus plutocracy.

If feminism, illegal immigration, etc were bad for big business, it wouldn't be protected by the state today. Big commotions are made by classical liberals when it comes to things like the Fuhrerprinzip. Meanwhile, the same people would trust 1 man with 20 billion dollars, as if this can't buy more influence and power than Napoleon ever dreamed of.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.
Page generated in 0.16542 seconds.