So, he says, you should make sure you buy new hardware only when necessary, not just because of the "Ooh... shiny!" factor"
What's new about this advice? Was it not as useful and applicable 50, 100, and 1000 years ago?
Employing a Marxist theory of capitalism to refute socialism? Fascinating.
Yes, employing an opponent's own theory to prove him wrong is, usually, the most reliable way to deliver defeat in detail to him. Because, although all of us may have different views on life, the views must be self-consistent to be respectable.
Seriously? Twitter? Even if your link really lead to an accusation of a strike on hospital (which it does not), would it have been credible? How about a more reliable source? Oh, sorry, you can't use that, because that page begins with Israel's explanation: "The Israeli military said it had targeted a cache of anti-tank missiles in the hospital's "immediate vicinity".
And we know very well, from sources both impartial and even those biased towards the Arabs, that Hamas does use such civilian buildings for weapons-caches.
Enron. Bernie Madoff.
Duly punished by bankruptcy and prison time.
Asset Backed Paper Commodities.
The only lies exposed by that fiasco is that of the mortgage applicants lying on their loan-applications. Most of those folks have never been to Wall Street.
High Frequency Theft.
No lies there. In other words, fail.
I don't believe that socialism (or capitalism) inherently create more cheating.
I simply believe that once people believe the system is unfair
Your two paragraphs contradict each other. Socialism — with it promise of equal results, rather than opportunity — is unfair, hence, it would create more cheating. Having grown up in the USSR, I still carry the notion, that cheating the government is perfectly Ok (as long as you can get away with it, of course). Because the government was a repressive beast, that cheated its citizenry on everything... My person may be anecdotal evidence, but the Economist's article puts more solid statistics behind it.
Fascism was the one from Italy, remember? It was the nazis with the gas chambers.
While not all Fascists were Nazis, all Nazis were Fascists. And, whenever your kind uses the term "fascists" to denounce someone, they never bother with the fine distinctions between Hitler, Mussolini and Franco — instead attributing the very worst features of all of them to whatever/whoever it is they are denouncing. Hence my question: Where are the gas chambers? And until you can present anything remotely similar, using the term is not called for. Mildly speaking.
The fascists were content with torture chambers, executions and shipping the "undesirables" to other countries to do the dirtiest work.
Oh, if that's, what's bothering you, then Eastern Germany (and the rest of USSR-dominated regimes) were far more "fascist" than the US ever was. Because they were using these methods not on (very) special occasions, but routinely and on massive scale.
Is it that capitalism you are talking about?
You must've tried to make some point there, but I don't get it. Could you try again, perhaps?
And, really, the same thing happens on Wall Street.
Citation needed.
Capitalism leads to cheating and malfeasance just as well.
According to TFA, it does indeed. But far less than Socialism.
From experience; I would be willing to bet that ANYONE living with scarcity threatening day to day living is willing to cheat, lie, con, finagle and it can get so bad that you steal, mug, burgle,injure and could possibly kill, dependent on circumstances.
From my experience — growing up in the USSR — it was perfectly Ok and morally acceptable to cheat the government. Because the repressive beast cheated the citizens far worse — when it was not outright killing them.
Sadly, modern Western government — hell-bent on income redistribution (known affectionately as "spreading the wealth around") — increasingly arouse the same sentiment...
How about automating virtually all production, as is rapidly beginning to happen?
It is beginning to happen, you'd observe, in Capitalist countries. Socialism, which was, officially, the first step towards that post-scarcity nirvana of Communism, would never have been able to achieve it.
And if you don't come up with some way for the other 99 men to earn a living you're going to have some serious social problems.
That same Capitalism, where everybody is not just allowed, but encouraged to do whatever other people are willing to pay for, will solve that problem. Whether it is creating entertainment, or growing healthier foods, or designing fancier gadgets — as long as people are allowed to profit from their ideas (rather than be told "You didn't build that!"), we are fine.
Spread the remaining jobs across 4-10 times as many people and everyone on the planet has the option of living a life of leisure where no-one has to work more than a few hours a week to provide for everyone, freeing everyone to focus their energy on art, philosophy, family, or even just recreation.
Unless some tyrant somewhere manages to drum-up some old butt-hurts of some reasonably powerful nation to divert those riches to war... Starting by invading his small neighbors and annexing provinces, for example...
American fascism
Fascism, huh? So, where are the gas-chambers?
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
