MJKee9

My Lanta!

That instruction is for the person you downloaded the meme from. I still got to post it after I download.... If I don't op gets to fuck my mother.

My comment was responding to another comment (which referred to heads of state). I wasn't responding to the original post. You then responded to my comment which was a sub comment to the post that I guess you really wanted to respond to....Try to keep up.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. I don't know why you are obsessed with child rape.....

Ok, historically some political leaders felt that raping all brides before their wedding night was a great honor bestowed upon the family. Egyptian royalty had slaves, family members and pets murdered or buried alive with them when they died.

Human history is full of it's leaders doing shitty and horrendous things.. We can either sit here and microanalyze whatever country or set of leaders we want to single out or just recognize that historically everybody in power was a piece of shit, and look for ways to do better and make our leaders do better.

Does anyone here think that the United States and the world is better off with Donald Trump in power as opposed to Kamala Harris? If your answer to that question is " but Kamala supported Israel too hard".... Then my original comment about perfection and goodness is for you.

Instead of actually working towards something better, let's just spend our time arguing over things we can't change. /S

Perfection is the enemy of good.

You understand that the only way the current economic policy results in what you're suggesting is everybody is brought down to such a desperate place that they are willing to work for pennies to possibly feed their family crumbs. All because the corporations that are paying the wages want 98% profit, not 97% profit. And the reason is national security concerns? If you're worried about national security concerns then why base a solution on capitalism? We are putting more and more power and placing more and more preference on the corporation as opposed to the individual. A corporation does not give two shits about national security concerns. The only thing they care about is how can we use national security breaches to make more money.

Therefore, your line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense. It assumes that you live in a world that doesn't exist. Furthermore, it completely ignores the source of the problem: unregulated capitalism. If your national security is dependent upon your economic policy, you're doing things wrong.

Who do you think transfers more money out of this country. The individual citizens buying vacuum cleaners, or corporations and billionaires who funneled their money to tax havens overseas. The only people harmed by the current economic policy are individuals trying to feed their families. Corporations are making more money than ever before. The wealthiest people in the world are more wealthy than they ever have been in recent history.

But you know what? Let's just put all the blame and responsibilty on the families. They should have bought their vacuum cleaners from cousin Billy down the street. The shitty economy is all their fault.

Do you hear how silly that sounds?

How does creating a local industry of cheap knockoffs help the US economy exactly? What you're describing is turning the United States into a random poorer country. That plan only makes sense if the ultimate goal is to diminish the United States economy and its influence in the world. That benefits China and India. It doesn't benefit the United States domestically.

Here's a better idea, invest in your people to create an economy and society that doesn't rely upon raping other country for labor and materials.

That position has a few inaccurate assumptions. The first being that the machines of capitalism, corporate entities, are tied to geographical regions. Today Apple could just move its base of operations to a country. Willing to have it. That isn't the US. All the company cares about is profit. It doesn't care about profit while having its base of operations in the United States. If the political climate is too unpredictable and the profits aren't easily obtainable, they're going to move to some place where the profits are more easily obtainable.

Another assumption you're making is that capitalism is the only solution. It really doesn't make sense addressing this assumption. If you believe one way, my words on the internet aren't going to make you believe it another way.

But another assumption implied in your thesis is that bringing back jobs is going to fix the problem. This conclusion fails to consider the fundamental nature of capitalism. Capitalism only prevails when there is constant growth of profit and more importantly for your position, growth of the consumer base. The reason why the United States were such successful Capitalists, was because of our booming population Post world war II. You had this constantly increasing stream of consumers that are necessary for the companies to make profit along with a stable and ever-growing manufacturing base. Those conditions don't currently exist in the United States.

To that end, the countries at an advantage for the next capitalistic explosion are those with huge populations like India and China. So trying to win the international battle of capitalism is a losing proposition for the United States in the foreseeable future.