And then the hyperinflation cycle starts.

Printing ever more money because the government is still spending more than it's taking in

I suppose that might work out for the US government for a while, but I don't think US citizens would appreciate it.

Until China, other countries holding our public debt, and individuals holding US debt realize what the US government is doing, says "oh shit we need to sell this debt now and never take on US debt again since they'll just devalue it" making it difficult for the government to borrow money, requiring them to offer extremely high interest rates, causing an even greater percentage of the budget to be debt interest payments, making it even more difficult to get our spending under control without hurting poor people.

At some point, you have to rip off the band-aid and just deal with it. It's better to deal with a problem before it becomes unmanageable.

Why do "people" need to accept that?

That's a well known artifact of fractional reserve banking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

The law as it is currently written is designed to result in banks producing roughly $10 for every $1 printed by the government.

Uhhh, Tarantino's best films are more about the dialog than the violence.

I disagree. If there were some form of ocean property rights (oh noes, capitalism!), BP would be paying money out the ass for years now due to all of the property damage they caused. That risk *should* make something like this more unlikely if only because it would be more costly (and corporations are greedy) for a company to deal with than some piddly fine by the government. They probably would have had the leak plugged by now. I doubt their punishment is increasing by the day at this point. It would be if every barrel of oil leaked eventually caused property damage.

No, no, no. You have it wrong. Its Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.

I can't speak for the original poster, but I've never had an aptitude test. I've never actually heard of people doing that outside of TV show plots.

He was probably referring to this, although, its not really relevant anymore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany#Citizenship_issues "Under previous German law, children born to foreigners in Germany were not entitled to German citizenship (jus sanguinis): a large population of permanently resident non-citizens developed, with the consequence over time that even the third generation born in Germany remained foreigners. As late as 2004, 36 per cent of Turkish citizens living in Germany did not have German nationality despite being born there.[3] In 2000, legislation was passed which conferred German citizenship on the German-born children of foreigners"

From Wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled. Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals or corporations, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers. In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework." Note that people in China don't seem to fully own their own labor(they are forced to work overtime and are forced to stay in the factory if they break the rules), nor are their rights protected by a "limited regulatory framework."

As I already posted a little ways up, capitalism requires a mechanism to try to ensure that the rights of the individual are not infringed. This is a necessary component. If you do not have this mechanism, you do not have capitalism. The best mechanism we have come up with is democracy. Is is possible for some other form government to protect the rights of individual? Sure, but history has shown that no other system will do it as reliably. I guess I could amend my comment to say that its unlikely that you have a capitalist system if you do not have democracy and the protection of rights. However, I think my point still stands.

Using the dumbed down definition, you are correct. Using a serious definition, capitalism includes a mechanism that protects the rights of the individual. So far, the best mechanism we have come up with is a government that consists of people elected by the people living in the country in question. That government is also generally prohibited from infringing upon the rights of the people living in the country in question, as well as being tasked with protecting the rights of its citizens from being infringed by others.

Forgot this part: On top of that, the educated in China that aren't really part of the government are unwilling to risk their wealth to help the poor. That's the clever part of what the Chinese government has done. After Tienanmen Square, they changed things enough to allow the educated (who might have the power/knowledge to do something) to live lives comparable to what we have in the west. This makes it somewhat difficult for them to say "hey, lets risk our wealth to help poor people."

That's true. However, the reason that those companies are able to do those things is because of the fact that the Chinese people don't have the necessary power to stop them. They don't have the right to freedom of speech and they don't have the ability to replace elected politicians with others. You can't call your system "capitalism" if you don't have those things. Just because an independent company is involved, doesn't mean its capitalism. That being said, this doesn't justify anything those companies (or we) do. Basically, the problem is that the Chinese government doesn't care about its own people, multi-national companies don't care about the Chinese people, and we (for the most part) don't care about the Chinese people.