The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, you really need to control other humans more so they stop using words differently than you.

I try, but fail.
We're in a post dictionary age.
"Socialism" has the advantage of taking less time to type than "democratic socialism".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I try, but fail.
We're in a post dictionary age.
"Socialism" has the advantage of taking less time to type than "democratic socialism".

No, we don't. We just are exposed to more cultures and different understandings, so words appear more diverse. But they have always been that, we just didn't notice, because we didn't have the Internet.

You would never had been exposed to the fact that in Denmark science is not the same as science in the USA, if it wasn't for the Internet, but it still would have been the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, we don't. We just are exposed to more cultures and different understandings, so words appear more diverse. But they have always been that, we just didn't notice, because we didn't have the Internet.

You would never had been exposed to the fact that in Denmark science is not the same as science in the USA, if it wasn't for the Internet, but it still would have been the case.

Are we going to redefine "science" to include Bible studies?
I won't go that far.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are we going to redefine "science" to include Bible studies?
I won't go that far.

No, not really. But I get your strawman. But if you want to play this we have left your science and enter the philosophy of science, for which you are properly going to answer to the effect of that you don't like that. For which I would answer that, that is not science even in Denmark.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, not really. But I get your strawman.

I don't get yours.
Your posts difficult to read.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't get yours.
Your posts difficult to read.

In your culture is only one kind of science in the end. In mine there are in effect 7. So please explain to me the correct definition of that word "science".

 

[Revoltingest]

In your culture is only one kind of science in the end. In mine there are in effect 7. So please explain to me the correct definition of that word "science".

It has no singular definition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It has no singular definition.

You are so post modern, right there.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are so post modern, right there.

Words mean whatever I shurb them to gleep.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Words mean whatever I shurb them to gleep.

Yeah as long as nobody else do that. I know.

 

[metis]

This raises a good point in that many large behemoth corporations have the same flaws and pitfalls that many conservatives and capitalists claim to be inherent in "big government." It seems that, no matter if it's a public institution or a private enterprise, if it's too big, then it can be a problem.

I once had an economics professor who compared the USSR to a giant corporation that owns everything. In other words, they beat/bought out/merged with the competition and cornered the market, which is something most capitalists strive towards. Of course, we have anti-trust laws and legal restrictions on monopolies, although even those had to be hard-won and were fought against by capitalists who didn't want any such restrictions at all.

But that seems to be changing with all the mergers and acquisitions and the huge conglomerates which have arisen, such as the recent Kroger-Safeway merger. Banks, too, used to be mainly confined to states have become international. What used to be called the "Arizona Bank" is now called "Bank of America." What used to be called "Valley National Bank" is now called "Chase Bank." What used to be "First Bank of Arizona" changed to "First Interstate Bank," and now it's "Wells Fargo." (They used to have a folksy commercial where they called it "Hank's Bank," to give people the illusion that they still have that personal touch, but it's really just one of many advertising and propaganda gimmicks.)

One can see similar phenomena in media and other industries. There was once a time when ABC and Disney were separate companies, but now they're the same company.

People see this happening over the course of decades, and while most people take it in stride, it's a phenomenon that people notice and might tend to react to with some degree of wariness. Some might feel justified in asking where all this is leading and what the endgame is projected to look like. Will it be one giant global corporation where all or most of the competition has been eliminated or bought out? Can the concepts of "free enterprise" and "free markets" truly survive if such a thing is allowed to go on unchecked?

This may point up the reason why some people might be more interested in socialism, but it may also be contributing to those who support statism and nationalism. It's rooted in the belief that only the state, by definition, can protect and defend the rights of the people. Capitalists, by definition, have absolutely zero interest in the rights of the people, since their only interest is in profit.

Very well said, imo. My personal "solution" is to largely buy local while favoring smaller businesses.