Le Pen Defines Globalization: "manufacturing by slaves for selling to the unemployed" - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

thommy · 02-07-2017, 07:31 AM

and i forget another thing:

le pen is one of the most hated politicians in her country. she is more or less the twin of trump. but france have an alternative and i hope that manuel macron will win the race - even when he does not have a policial party behind him.
that guy is so fresh and so highly intelligent that he is the best what can happen to france.

greetings
thommy

thommy · 02-07-2017, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oppoten

You're not white

infact NOBODY on this planet is white.
we all are from africa and have been black before.

but i can not understand why someone have to make an insult from a word what describes a color. maybe i just can not imagin that because i never used that to insult someone because of his skin color.

greetings
thommy

CarlosTheGaucho · 02-07-2017, 08:18 AM

A) All these countries have in common is that they have production that enables the capital to gain more profit at a lower production cost.

But these profits are typically NOT redistributed at a higher than the least necessary rate in these countries. The profit is used to generate even more profit on the capital market. Don't forget these companies must satisfy their shareholders in the first place. This also brings structural unemployment to the countries that used to have production.

And since the majority of people will NOT ever have exceptional skills - this is Gauss curve, the real question is what to do with them. These are the ones revolting.
These new countries will go through exactly the same phase once the production leaves.

B) Indeed - it brought major increase in profits for capital, but the trickle down effect does NOT work. This has been proven over and over again - concentrating more profit in less hands will NOT bring redistribution of wealth in terms of increasing the living standards or tax revenue. It's exactly the opposite - all it brings is more income inequality.

This may sound like a passage from Marx's capital, and there were some petrified economists in 2007/08 that brought that book to that year's economic forums, but this part is proven to work exactly like that. So again the question is how to deal with this, since this is hardly sustainable.

C) The living standards on the west have been declining since the early 70's at the time when Globalization started and banks were let run wild.

Corporations are now in the position to negotiate with governments and make them bend to their rules while redistributing as least as possible in the country they're dealing with.
All this brings is more money flowing in the artificial economy (corporations / banking / capital market) and less money that's recycled (in terms of actual people exchanging it).
Again the question is how to tackle this - since this is hardly sustainable in the long term.

Not saying that simple and likable slogans that may have little base in real maths are the answer, but these are the empiric facts. Just hinting at what's the reason of the current revolt.
If you don't satisfy your electorate's basic needs, or at least aren't able to communicate to them your policies effectively, they will vote for somebody who will promise them to do so.

Barry-xlovecam · 02-07-2017, 08:20 AM

verbal diarrhea ^^^

NewNick · 02-07-2017, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

A) All these countries have in common is that they have production that enables the capital to gain more profit at a lower production cost.

But these profits are typically NOT redistributed at a higher than the least necessary rate in these countries. The profit is used to generate even more profit on the capital market. Don't forget these companies must satisfy their shareholders in the first place. This also brings structural unemployment to the countries that used to have production.

And since the majority of people will NOT ever have exceptional skills - this is Gauss curve, the real question is what to do with them. These are the ones revolting.
These new countries will go through exactly the same phase once the production leaves.

B) Indeed - it brought major increase in profits for capital, but the trickle down effect does NOT work. This has been proven over and over again - concentrating more profit in less hands will NOT bring redistribution of wealth in terms of increasing the living standards or tax revenue. It's exactly the opposite - all it brings is more income inequality.

This may sound like a passage from Marx's capital, and there were some petrified economists in 2007/08 that brought that book to that year's economic forums, but this part is proven to work exactly like that. So again the question is how to deal with this, since this is hardly sustainable.

C) The living standards on the west have been declining since the early 70's at the time when Globalization started and banks were let run wild.

Corporations are now in the position to negotiate with governments and make them bend to their rules while redistributing as least as possible in the country they're dealing with.
All this brings is more money flowing in the artificial economy (corporations / banking / capital market) and less money that's recycled (in terms of actual people exchanging it).
Again the question is how to tackle this - since this is hardly sustainable in the long term.

Not saying that simple and likable slogans that may have little base in real maths are the answer, but these are the empiric facts. Just hinting at what's the reason of the current revolt.
If you don't satisfy your electorate's basic needs, or at least aren't able to communicate to them your policies effectively, they will vote for somebody who will promise them to do so.

Ok so you agree on all points.

The new anti-globalisation rhetoric has zero basis in fact - it is false solution to a made up problem.

The original point of the thread; "globalisation is slaves making stuff for the unemployed" is patent nonsense.

But that is the new post Trump reality - make up a non problem and then lie about how you are the only one that can fix it.

The really scary bit is a) every other country around the world has their own Trumpesque loon waiting in the wings, b) what happens when his bullshit executive orders dont deliver ?

thommy · 02-07-2017, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

A) All these countries have in common is that they have production that enables the capital to gain more profit at a lower production cost.

But these profits are typically NOT redistributed at a higher than the least necessary rate in these countries. The profit is used to generate even more profit on the capital market. Don't forget these companies must satisfy their shareholders in the first place. This also brings structural unemployment to the countries that used to have production.

And since the majority of people will NOT ever have exceptional skills - this is Gauss curve, the real question is what to do with them. These are the ones revolting.
These new countries will go through exactly the same phase once the production leaves.

B) Indeed - it brought major increase in profits for capital, but the trickle down effect does NOT work. This has been proven over and over again - concentrating more profit in less hands will NOT bring redistribution of wealth in terms of increasing the living standards or tax revenue. It's exactly the opposite - all it brings is more income inequality.

This may sound like a passage from Marx's capital, and there were some petrified economists in 2007/08 that brought that book to that year's economic forums, but this part is proven to work exactly like that. So again the question is how to deal with this, since this is hardly sustainable.

C) The living standards on the west have been declining since the early 70's at the time when Globalization started and banks were let run wild.

Corporations are now in the position to negotiate with governments and make them bend to their rules while redistributing as least as possible in the country they're dealing with.
All this brings is more money flowing in the artificial economy (corporations / banking / capital market) and less money that's recycled (in terms of actual people exchanging it).
Again the question is how to tackle this - since this is hardly sustainable in the long term.

Not saying that simple and likable slogans that may have little base in real maths are the answer, but these are the empiric facts. Just hinting at what's the reason of the current revolt.
If you don't satisfy your electorate's basic needs, or at least aren't able to communicate to them your policies effectively, they will vote for somebody who will promise them to do so.

you are not generally wrong with what you are saying.
it is indeed a problem that you can make capital with capital - because money can´t be a product - it is an equivalent to a product and if you change the value of the equivalent it is not in balance with the products on the markets.

you are also right when you say that more money in the hand of less people does not resolve the problem. infact it is increasing the problem, because money have to circle from hand to hand (that was the idea bbehind money)

but here you are wrong:

Quote:

Corporations are now in the position to negotiate with governments and make them bend to their rules while redistributing as least as possible in the country they're dealing with.

this is not a problem from NOW it is a problem that this is since CENTURIES like that. it is one of the main factors what trump wanted to kill (because it is called corruption). but instead doing this he brings the most and best for their corrupt live knowing people into the white house and make them "his team".

so what he is doeing is the OPPOSITE what he promised but because americans should not watch that he give them another spot to look at - he give them enemies.

greetings
thommy

Tubthumper · 02-07-2017, 11:12 AM

If you do not support Marine Le Pen for French president, then you are a sexist POS. Check your male privilege, shitlords.

thommy · 02-07-2017, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubthumper

If you do not support Marine Le Pen for French president, then you are a sexist POS. Check your male privilege, shitlords.

are you sure she is a women?

NewNick · 02-07-2017, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubthumper

If you do not support Marine Le Pen for French president, then you are a sexist POS. Check your male privilege, shitlords.

Nothing to do with her policies then.

CarlosTheGaucho · 02-09-2017, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thommy

but here you are wrong:

this is not a problem from NOW it is a problem that this is since CENTURIES like that. it is one of the main factors what trump wanted to kill (because it is called corruption). but instead doing this he brings the most and best for their corrupt live knowing people into the white house and make them "his team".

so what he is doeing is the OPPOSITE what he promised but because americans should not watch that he give them another spot to look at - he give them enemies.

greetings
thommy

Hard to argue with that.

While there's probably never been so much panic and crying wolf over a new president, some of these picks are of course completely in line with this and they do owe many favors.

While Rex Tillerson may be a strong negotiator, it would be naive to expect he would ever go against the interest of big oil.

Exactly the same if you nominate somebody who made his fortune on Wall Street.

The question if the fact that they are in the cabinet directly, and not just pulling the strings from the background as usual - if this may be a benefit or not in terms of holding them accountable.

Big Oil, Wall Street - and then there's the third big player - the arms industry complex, and that's of course the dangerous one since it's directly connected with the foreign policy (or a lack of thereof).

Bladewire · 05-07-2017, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

I don't know her or her politics, I clicked on the article and agreed with this general statement of hers: "Globalisation, she said, meant "manufacturing by slaves for selling to the unemployed"

Brad

She's right about that but wrong about breaking up the EU, and many other things, like supporting dictator Putin, and taking his money.

Luckily centrist Emmanuelle Macron has been elected the new president of France today

nico-t · 05-07-2017, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StefanG

Sad to see you approve the resident Nazis on this board tbh

Sad to see such an ignorant, simplistic and insulting generalization.

nico-t · 05-07-2017, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

I don't know her or her politics, I clicked on the article and agreed with this general statement of hers: "Globalisation, she said, meant "manufacturing by slaves for selling to the unemployed"

Brad

This boards brainwashed idiots do not look at arguments, facts and individual topical standpoints.
If the media tells them a person is bad, they believe it, don't listen to what is really being said, and call everybody who does listen objectively a nazi.

Bladewire · 05-07-2017, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

This boards brainwashed idiots do not look at arguments, facts and individual topical standpoints.
If the media tells them a person is bad, they believe it, don't listen to what is really being said, and call everybody who does listen objectively a nazi.

Fuck off dude all you do is post hate and bitch and moan every time your fascist racist xenophobic candidates lose. That's 2 in a row now you're alt-right "movement" is dead deal with it

02-07-2017, 07:31 AM	#51
thommy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Switzerland / Germany / Thailand Posts: 5,469	and i forget another thing: le pen is one of the most hated politicians in her country. she is more or less the twin of trump. but france have an alternative and i hope that manuel macron will win the race - even when he does not have a policial party behind him. that guy is so fresh and so highly intelligent that he is the best what can happen to france. greetings thommy __________________ Open for handpicked publishers and advertisers: www.trafficfabrik.com

02-07-2017, 08:18 AM	#53
CarlosTheGaucho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,510	A) All these countries have in common is that they have production that enables the capital to gain more profit at a lower production cost. But these profits are typically NOT redistributed at a higher than the least necessary rate in these countries. The profit is used to generate even more profit on the capital market. Don't forget these companies must satisfy their shareholders in the first place. This also brings structural unemployment to the countries that used to have production. And since the majority of people will NOT ever have exceptional skills - this is Gauss curve, the real question is what to do with them. These are the ones revolting. These new countries will go through exactly the same phase once the production leaves. B) Indeed - it brought major increase in profits for capital, but the trickle down effect does NOT work. This has been proven over and over again - concentrating more profit in less hands will NOT bring redistribution of wealth in terms of increasing the living standards or tax revenue. It's exactly the opposite - all it brings is more income inequality. This may sound like a passage from Marx's capital, and there were some petrified economists in 2007/08 that brought that book to that year's economic forums, but this part is proven to work exactly like that. So again the question is how to deal with this, since this is hardly sustainable. C) The living standards on the west have been declining since the early 70's at the time when Globalization started and banks were let run wild. Corporations are now in the position to negotiate with governments and make them bend to their rules while redistributing as least as possible in the country they're dealing with. All this brings is more money flowing in the artificial economy (corporations / banking / capital market) and less money that's recycled (in terms of actual people exchanging it). Again the question is how to tackle this - since this is hardly sustainable in the long term. Not saying that simple and likable slogans that may have little base in real maths are the answer, but these are the empiric facts. Just hinting at what's the reason of the current revolt. If you don't satisfy your electorate's basic needs, or at least aren't able to communicate to them your policies effectively, they will vote for somebody who will promise them to do so. __________________ CTG Media \| skype: carlosprague \| cb \|at\| ctgmedia \|dot\| net \| Want to make more with your Dating Traffic? \| Read My Educational Series \| Read my Adult Biz Chronicles \| Did your ad revenue drop by 40 pct. or more last year?

02-07-2017, 11:12 AM	#57
Tubthumper Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 203	If you do not support Marine Le Pen for French president, then you are a sexist POS. Check your male privilege, shitlords. __________________ "Pretty women make us buy beer, ugly women make us drink beer." - Al Bundy

02-07-2017, 08:20 AM	#54
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	verbal diarrhea ^^^