Is Capitalism theft?

[pi3141]

Back in the days I used to frequent a website called 'People For Mathematically Perfect Economy' Really interesting site.

 

I've just found him on Facebook.

 

I might have to see if I can catch up to a few of your points later. But just one for now:

 

Inasmuch as ostensible money is at least a record; and furthermore as banking systems never give up commensurable consideration for the money they pretend to lend even into existence... there is no reason whatsoever that banks can't return money to accounts and so forth, ostensibly because further borrowers haven't been able to service their loans.

 

Every loan is effectively a creation of money. There is no reason to presume that money has ever been taken from depositors' accounts, because of this additional creation. Their records should never reflect that they depleted depositors' accounts, because of this further creation.

But yes, if they can't run an oil business, they are not fit to run a country. It's the same with ballooning federal debt. There is no need to borrow money at interest to cover deficits, because all that's transpiring here is that the banking system (or other such instruments) are no more than creating further representations of the promissory obligations of the people to each other.

 

But we're only going to fix all this then, when we finally reunite as people.

 

John Pearson- Author "I didn't and still don't understand why our economy is so dire."

 

As those pages once detailed my original work, the reason all contemporary economies reflect a state of perpetual degeneration is an inherently terminal obfuscation of our currency:

 

The principal problem we have is, that we believe without even the least reasonable explanation or legal corroboration, that money can be lent even into existence. Yet the principles of the legal systems of the world inherently require a relinquishing of commensurable consideration, for any contract to be enforceable. "Lending" therefore, cannot in fact transpire without giving up commensurable consideration. Thus the ramifications of any contract are sorted out by processes which effectively determine who provided what to whom; what therefore are the owings; and to whom are the owings owed? The latter of course, is determined by the required relinquishing of commensurable consideration.

 

Briefly, what this matter sorts out to, is that our debts are not to the purported banking systems of the world, which, at most give up only the negligible consideration of publishing coin or paper representations of the promissory obligations of the people to each other. In the 1970s for example, it cost the so-called Federal Reserve System one-tenth or a cent per bill, regardless of denomination, to absorb the printing costs of paper money. In other words, it cost the Fed literally ten cents to publish 100 one-thousand-dollar bills, to pretend it was lending $100,000 into existence. The profit on just the principal in this fraudulence then, was literally $99,999.90.

 

These were not the initial facts uncovered by my work. So please don't misunderstand that the roots of MPE™ sought some sort of evasion. Yet these facts were immediate artifacts of the original compelling realization.

 

MPE™ actually arises in approximately half an hour of a single day, owing to a few minutes' repudiation in a high school economics classroom, which proved that perpetual price inflation, devaluation of money, expatriation and destruction of industry, and recessions and depressions owe to obfuscating the promissory obligations of the people to each other, into faux debts to the banking system, further subject to unwarranted interest.

 

The reason your economies reflect ever-increasing adversity to prosperity, is the fact that to the extent we're required to sustain a vital circulation by further borrowing, principal returns to circulation as sustains every prior sum of debt, while interest returns as perpetually increases the sum of debt by ever-greater increments.

 

This process is responsible for all the aforesaid, highly undesirable anomalies.

 

 

John Pearson- Author "In the UK the government had to sell off our national oil because it was incapable of running it at a profit. Same with bus's and trains. Well if they can't run a business, how can't they run a country."

 

I hope you are correctly paraphrasing the presumed deficiencies in wherewithal. The reason you offer may indeed be the official explanation or the public perception. But the idea you express is oxymoronic in its inherent contradictions. So, we should better understand the proposed matter, if we are to develop a valid perspective of the transgressions at hand.

 

No nation has a valid reason to sell off its natural resources. Neither do they have the right or authority to do so, because a nation's resources inherently belong to the country until they come to belong to the specific people, whom in abiding by the laws of the country, render the resources to further processes of implementation.

 

The dire transgression against this uniform principle which must explain the crimes at hand therefore, must relate either to such a dire condition of the government which makes the government so desperate for further funding; or, on the alternate hand, the government must simply have sought that funding for criminal purposes such as the personal self-enrichment of the offending officers of the government. Adults will anticipate in every case, that both are likely, for legitimate government will not risk apprehension otherwise.

 

Of course, the inevitably dire fact which would compel every government to seek such offensive and debilitating means to fund its operations is the perpetual escalation of debt I have described. Note then, that once a government resorts to deficit spending (because the reasonable limits of its capacity to tax can no longer afford what it is obliged to spend), it enters into a perpetual state of further deficit spending and accumulation of faux debt (if it features a contemporary central banking system), because to every subsequent budget is added the owed interest (or dividends, etc.) of the previous deficit. As industry is forced to increase prices to sustain margins of solubility over the parallel escalation of private debt then, government costs inherently increase until an ever-more-limited capacity to tax the remainder first imposes and thereafter escalates deficit spending.

 

So, to meet the excesses they could only have met by rectifying your currency, the criminal officers of your government did what they had no inherent or misconstruable authority to do — they sold your oil reserves to make ends meet, in the fraudulent, redundant, and ever-unwarranted escalation of public and private debt you suffer under the terminal obfuscation of your currency. Of course, that escalation of faux debt is also the only reasonable explanation of the difficulties they would have encountered in harvesting your oil reserves on a profitable basis.

 

If you're wondering... the reason this might be (artificially) more difficult in your country as opposed to others, is the age of the life cycle of your faux economy: Of course, the more advanced the current state of the life cycle (to inevitable failure and depression), the greater the relative debt... and the more marginal the capacity for solubility.

 

 

 

John Pearson- Author "Of course I understand the problems with our Capitalist system, the ridiculousness of outsourcing, i believe it's the sign of severe economic decline."

 

Yes, as we understand from the prescribed pattern of escalating debt, production is perpetually forced to increase prices, merely to sustain vital margins of solubility over the perpetually escalating costs of servicing the escalation of debt.

 

Because markets can only afford so much escalation of cost then, industry or production have an always-limited capacity to sufficiently increase prices. So indeed, it is a sign of the dire condition of the present lifecycle of their faux economy, when industry further seeks to sustain margins of solubility by expatriation or outsourcing. Effectively then, the both are signs of the proximity of terminal sums of faux debt.

 

 

John Pearson- Author "I just don't understand why they still allow our system to continue."

 

If there is one foremost fact we ought most to assimilate, it is the fact that people are so corrupted by this terminal obfuscation of our currency. 

 

I was raised for several years in a very nice $35,000 home built in 1963. Understand that the original contracts of issuance translate in part to an obligation to sustain the value of money and property — for either the obligor or legitimate recipient of issued money are otherwise injured by impropriety. This inherent responsibility inherently makes it illegal to ever refinance property for more than its remaining value — which ought to be what is still owed against the original value of the subject property. In other words, the contractual implications (even as obfuscated by the banking system) impose a legal responsibility never to refinance this home for more than $35,000, less whatever of the lifespan has so far been consumed. In other words, in a linear concept of consumption and remaining value, half that $35,000 would be consumed at half the lifespan. Given a 100-year lifespan then, at 50 years of the home's lifecycle, the remaining value of the home would be $17,500 — and this would be the proper value of the home, and debt an ensuing owner would assume in assuming title of the home at that point of its lifecycle.

 

So, dividing a 100-year lifespan into $35,000, we find the annual linear costs of the home to be $350; and dividing 12 into this, we find the monthly linear costs to be $29.17. As it is a crime to refinance the home for more then; it is a crime to impose higher periodic costs of ownership. Yet we understand then, that the principal reason a banking system gladly perpetrates the crime, is to perpetually dispossess us of ever more.

 

So the purported market value of the home is now $2,340,000. The monthly payments are $14,500+. Yet, the $234,000 down payment ought to have paid for the home 6.685714 times over; and just 2.41379 of the 360 payments ought to have paid for the home now, if it were new. Because the home is instead 62 years old now, the linear remaining value would instead be $13,300; and therefore every one of those 360 further payments ought to pay for the remaining value of the home in full. Never doubt for a moment then, how the most recent generations of every plagued country have lost hope in prospering as their predecessors prospered.

 

But understand that your political contests are decided by all this dispossession. And understand further then, that we're never going to get proper representation until we eliminate money and the political parties which are ruled by money, from political contests.

 

 

John Pearson- Author "The bank bailouts were a sign, the system doesn't work properly, instead we bail them out, artificially fix interest rates and pretend it's just a blip, lessons learned. They haven't been learned, anyway, I think your probably right about to unfold."

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. But the bank bailouts are actually a sign of the corruption of the system — rather than its assumed self-endangerment. The presumed predicament is wholly artificial: When a bank is presumed to lend depositors' money, it does not notify the depositors that their money cannot be returned until it is repaid. Counting almost all of the first "repayments" then toward interest rather than principal, it doesn't further notify the depositors that although so-many-times the debt have been repaid in interest, their principal has not been repaid yet.

 

Of course, this would be a fiduciary obligation, if money were actually lent from depositors' accounts — as is the intended delusion.

It matters not how they obfuscate their state in the falsifications of their books. The fact is, that when depositors' money is ostensibly lent, it is still available to the depositors. This means then, that an actual separate and further instance of money has actually been created. This of course is created on their books as reflects this fact, while the owings to the depositors is also still recognized.

 

But the system actually works perfectly for the central bank... which has practically no costs... reaps vast profit on just the issued principal... and multiplies this perpetually in the further unwarranted imposition of interest: There is no risk of the principal, because commensurable consideration is never given up for the principle.

 

The further crime of presuming the people ought to bail out the banking systems which steal so from us, is merely a further reflection of the underlying criminality. When a peripheral bank needs (only owing to the rules of the system) more money, it pretends to borrow this from the central bank. The central bank produces new money as a debt to itself, by merely absorbing the printing costs (if any, for most money is instead merely records); and presumes to charge at least the purported "prime rate" of interest to the "borrowing" bank. All this does is lend a layer of obfuscation to the underlying obfuscation. YOU presume that if the peripheral bank is "borrowing" your money, this precipitates a debt to the central bank. You have no idea whatever the ramifications or facts of commensurable consideration are.

 

Only principal influxes into the circulation, from which circulation, the principal and interest of eternity are to be paid. Thus the greater outflux of principal + interest forces us to sustain a vital circulation by a perpetual escalation of borrowing.

 

Ultimately, as the sums of resultant debt approach a critical state, more afflicted sectors of the lie of economy are unable to sufficiently service their particular debts. If the lie of economy can survive their failure, we have a recession. If not, we have a depression.

 

In either case, we presume that the peripheral banks can no longer service their debts to the central bank. But the only reason we concur in this misbegotten misunderstanding is firstly that we fail to realize that no such debts precipitate to the banking system at all; and secondly, that we fail also to realize that neither is there any rightful claim to interest.

 

So the reason the banking system's fellow criminals are so willing to pretend you need to bail out the banking system if you are to get your money from the banking system, is simply that you're so willing to submit to the lies.

 

If you instead reverted your money to its only rightful state, this would inherently revise your $2,340,000 cost of a $35,000 home built in 1963, to the remaining $13,300. Having already paid far more than that in just your down payment, your remaining debt is already fulfilled many times over. If any balance remained, your payments would be $29 per month, instead of $14,500 — whenever you became obligated to begin paying further against a remainder you had already substantially paid.

 

The reason you don't need to bail out the peripheral banks (which we deal directly with) however, is that as most money is simply a record, and as the banks possess records of their owings to us, those owings can simply be honored by relinquishing the records of the owings to you.

 

It is only because the banking system is intending to hide the fact its issuing further money in all its fraudulent acts of lending, that you believe there is a contest for your money which can only be resolved by ostensibly "repaying" the central bank.

 

No such obligation exists. And no such resultant shortage of money to restore your accounts to you therefore exists.

 

All of which are prevented and resolved by immediate adoption of mathematically perfected economy™. Which, given that I wrote an executive order for the 1979 Reagan Campaign which would accomplish exactly that purpose in minutes... makes it awfully difficult for me to understand why world is still crying out that "they" won't give us solution.

 

You continue to elect the wrong "they."

 

 

 

 

In a nutshell, this is his argument - 

 

As I have too often been forced to repeat, the perpetual escalation of your debt by a terminal obfuscation of your currency is altogether the cause of perpetual price inflation, recession, expatriation and destruction of industry, and eventual depression.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11 by pi3141

[Mr H]

@pi3141 ty Interesting reading. Lot to Rd. I've gotten half way through.

 

Just some initial comments. 

 

Money doesn't just get continually printed in a fiat currency system. It's a constant to and throw. For example, we've just completed a quantitative tightening cycle taking money out of the m2 ( note m1 is not effected by loans etc).

 

Even when we had a gold standard, the cost to print money, and I think you refer to M1 now. Was the cost to make a paper note or coin. So it is the same situation today. The only difference being, they had gold reserves to back most (not all) of it up. But the cost was the same. Our money is still essentially backed up, by the government, and behind that the economy or the markets trust in our economy to not go bankrupt. But not having it linked to a fixed supply means the economy can expand much more quickly, that's the theory anyway.

 

There's also a limit of how much money you can print, otherwise you wreck the economy. So there are restraints. It's not quite like how the gold bug YouTubers make out, they've got an infinite money printer and it's all backed by nothing just thin air. I think that's misrepresentation.

 

What I don't know though is how a Marxist would create money.

 

I will continue reading the rest of your post.

[Mr H]

Yes Rd the rest. Extremely interesting read ty. Makes some extremely good points

[Grumpy Owl]

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with 'capitalism' at its fundamental core.

 

Any commercial business needs to make profit, so it can be reinvested back into the business. Whether that be in the form of buying new equipment and premises in order to grow or improve the business, or through rewarding staff with bonuses and pay rises.

 

The problem we have nowadays is that we have too many 'big corporations' that have become greedy, and profits made are being 'leeched away' either into the pockets of shareholders, or in excessive salaries being paid to chief executives and senior managers and administration staff.

 

"Theft" only really comes into it when you have these big companies making huge amounts of profit and then finding ways of avoiding paying taxes on it.

 

I see some of the sums of money that CEOs and senior managers make and I'm like WTF, does anyone REALLY need to be paid over a million pounds a year?

 

I couldn't do it, that's an obscene amount for anyone to be earning.

 

So 'big corporate capitalism' I do have a problem with, because its all about greed and exploiting both workers and consumers, as well as hoarding resources from all over the planet, just to ensure a handful of 'bigwigs' at the top of the pyramid get their mega-salaries every month.

 

What we really need is more smaller "ethical capitalism", where you have companies paying staff a fair wage, managers and executives receiving 'modest' salaries, and their end-products/services being priced fairly to consumers/users.

 

And perhaps we need to scale back and reduce 'rampant consumerism' and thus mass production. No one should need to buy a new washing machine every few years etc.

[pi3141]

19 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with 'capitalism' at its fundamental core.

 

Any commercial business needs to make profit, so it can be reinvested back into the business. Whether that be in the form of buying new equipment and premises in order to grow or improve the business, or through rewarding staff with bonuses and pay rises.

 

The problem we have nowadays is that we have too many 'big corporations' that have become greedy, and profits made are being 'leeched away' either into the pockets of shareholders, or in excessive salaries being paid to chief executives and senior managers and administration staff.

 

"Theft" only really comes into it when you have these big companies making huge amounts of profit and then finding ways of avoiding paying taxes on it.

 

I see some of the sums of money that CEOs and senior managers make and I'm like WTF, does anyone REALLY need to be paid over a million pounds a year?

 

I couldn't do it, that's an obscene amount for anyone to be earning.

 

So 'big corporate capitalism' I do have a problem with, because its all about greed and exploiting both workers and consumers, as well as hoarding resources from all over the planet, just to ensure a handful of 'bigwigs' at the top of the pyramid get their mega-salaries every month.

 

What we really need is more smaller "ethical capitalism", where you have companies paying staff a fair wage, managers and executives receiving 'modest' salaries, and their end-products/services being priced fairly to consumers/users.

 

And perhaps we need to scale back and reduce 'rampant consumerism' and thus mass production. No one should need to buy a new washing machine every few years etc.

 

Totally agree  

 

It's not the system itself, its the abuses and rampant consumerism fuelled by inferior products.

 

Again, the products we buy are designed to be just good enough, then priced at the maximum to ensure high profits.

 

Pile on that the exploitation and tax avoidance, lack of big corps social responsibility and empathy, and you have what we got today. 

 

An unsustainable and unfair system producing shoddy products. 

[chud]

On 5/18/2025 at 2:24 PM, pi3141 said:

 

It's not the system itself, its the abuses and rampant consumerism fuelled by inferior products.

 

 

be it in economics, politics or medicine all systems are wrong and harmful because not being applicable to a whole society, a whole population or a whole metabolism... systems were invented to get things easier for better efficiency and productivity... it wouldn't take or cost more to solve problems one by one following the rules of logics and intelligence but it's not how a handful of people want things to get done... not that they even care anyway...

Edited May 24 by chud

[Piero]

The Men who Stole the World (2018)

 

They are the bankers, traders, and executives who crossed the red line, putting personal gain above ethics, triggering financial chaos with global repercussions. "The Men Who Stole The World" delves into the world of high-stakes finance, exposing how greed and impunity among the elite of the financial world impoverished nations, plunged millions into unemployment, and fueled the rise of extremism worldwide.

 

Through the voices of those who were there—bankers themselves, their families, former insiders, and those caught in the crossfire—the documentary paints a vivid picture of how the reckless actions of a few rippled out to affect millions. As tongues loosen a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, the film offers an unprecedented glimpse into the mechanisms and mindset of those responsible. What drove them to break moral boundaries? How did the system both exploit and protect them?

 

Beyond individual stories, "The Men Who Stole The World" examines the broader history of finance's descent over the past fifteen years, charting its impact on society. Did those truly responsible for the 2008 crisis face justice? And, perhaps most critically, has the world learned enough to prevent such catastrophic failures from happening again?

 

Benoît Bringer’s incisive storytelling reveals not just the extraordinary lives of the financial elite but also the fragility of a system that continues to walk a precarious line between profit and ruin. This documentary is a sobering investigation into the enduring consequences of unchecked power and the urgent need for accountability.

 

Edited May 26 by Piero

[Mr H]

On 5/17/2025 at 6:05 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with 'capitalism' at its fundamental core.

 

Any commercial business needs to make profit, so it can be reinvested back into the business. Whether that be in the form of buying new equipment and premises in order to grow or improve the business, or through rewarding staff with bonuses and pay rises.

 

The problem we have nowadays is that we have too many 'big corporations' that have become greedy, and profits made are being 'leeched away' either into the pockets of shareholders, or in excessive salaries being paid to chief executives and senior managers and administration staff.

 

"Theft" only really comes into it when you have these big companies making huge amounts of profit and then finding ways of avoiding paying taxes on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there is a problem at the core. And it's nothing to do with profit making. Profit making is great, and cooperative systems have the same target.

 

The issue and difference being. In a cooperative profits are distributed on a contribution basis. In a capitalist system the capitalist does not produce any goods, they pay their workers poorly - the people who make the goods. In the main, often the only thing the capitalist had to do was risk money and often in recent times it has been almost risk free, so not really risking anything. It's a little crazy.....

[Grumpy Owl]

On 5/26/2025 at 10:20 PM, Mr H said:

I think there is a problem at the core. And it's nothing to do with profit making. Profit making is great, and cooperative systems have the same target.

 

The issue and difference being. In a cooperative profits are distributed on a contribution basis. In a capitalist system the capitalist does not produce any goods, they pay their workers poorly - the people who make the goods. In the main, often the only thing the capitalist had to do was risk money and often in recent times it has been almost risk free, so not really risking anything. It's a little crazy.....

 

That's why I advocated for what I call an 'ethical capitalism' system. Which is essentially what many micro or small businesses are.

 

Big corporate businesses add on layers and layers of administration and management. That's where you start seeing people earning huge sums of money, for doing very little 'on the front line'.

 

I work for a small business. We are 'micro' in that we only have 5 staff, yet we turnover over £2m a year. My gaffer, the MD, is involved hands-on with the day-to-day running of the business. I earn a very decent salary, in fact I am probably paid more than he earns out of the business. We don't make huge profits, but money is invested back into the business, either through buying stock, or employing additional staff as we have started doing this year.

 

Big corporate capitalism is bad - their goals are to produce stuff as cheap as possible, so they can maximise their earnings, in order to pay the managers and executives huge salaries, and then find ways of dodging corporation tax on the excess profits that they make.

 

What we need are more cooperatives and small businesses, rather than global conglomerates and corporations.

[Mr H]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

That's why I advocated for what I call an 'ethical capitalism' system. Which is essentially what many micro or small businesses are.

 

Big corporate businesses add on layers and layers of administration and management. That's where you start seeing people earning huge sums of money, for doing very little 'on the front line'.

 

I work for a small business. We are 'micro' in that we only have 5 staff, yet we turnover over £2m a year. My gaffer, the MD, is involved hands-on with the day-to-day running of the business. I earn a very decent salary, in fact I am probably paid more than he earns out of the business. We don't make huge profits, but money is invested back into the business, either through buying stock, or employing additional staff as we have started doing this year.

 

Big corporate capitalism is bad - their goals are to produce stuff as cheap as possible, so they can maximise their earnings, in order to pay the managers and executives huge salaries, and then find ways of dodging corporation tax on the excess profits that they make.

 

What we need are more cooperatives and small businesses, rather than global conglomerates and corporations.

Yes I understand.i like this model too

 

I Think Marx's observation would be that this is more Marxist than capitalist structure/operation. But I'm not an expert on the topic

[pi3141]

Carney gave a short speech in Canada last week, said he wants a shift from Shareholder Capitalism to Stakeholder Capitalism 

 

 

Mark Carney: Inclusive capitalism - creating a sense of the systemic

 

Speech by Mr Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board, at the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, London, 27 May 2014.

The views expressed in this speech are those of the speaker and not the view of the BIS.

 

Link - https://www.bis.org/review/r140528b.htm

 

 

 

Mark Carney's speech to endorse his idea of 'Inclusive Capitalism': "fairness across generations", "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcomes". While he's spending $130B borrowed money in next 4 years, adding $225B to federal debts and this creates unfiarness across generations

 

Link - 

 

 

Stakeholder Capitalism 

 

What is stakeholder capitalism?
Jan 22, 2021

 

Stakeholder capitalism is a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.

 

These days, a lot of political and business leaders debate whether “stakeholder capitalism” would provide us with a better way to organize the economy. But what exactly is stakeholder capitalism, and where does it originate? In this blog, adapted from our book Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet, we like to tackle this question, and provide the reader with a clear answer.

 

Link - https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/

 

 

 

Edited June 9 by pi3141

[chud]

Looks like the European society once decided to take over everything worse the Roman Empire had fathered until its decline and give that ‘great reset’ the pretty name of Renaissance… Because the social ‘monster’ created by Rome had survived in the Roman Church and its successive headquarters in the meantime until it was imposed again on the ‘barbarians’ European peoples then were. The evil always survives.

 

 

[Grumpy Owl]

On 6/9/2025 at 8:33 PM, chud said:

Looks like the European society once decided to take over everything worse the Roman Empire had fathered until its decline and give that ‘great reset’ the pretty name of Renaissance… Because the social ‘monster’ created by Rome had survived in the Roman Church and its successive headquarters in the meantime until it was imposed again on the ‘barbarians’ European peoples then were. The evil always survives.

 

 

 

I think you're right, I'm not 100% sure of my Latin or French right now, but the word 'Renaissance' itself means 'rebirth' or 'renewal'.

 

Which lends itself nicely to the 'modern' ideology of 'reset'. 

[chud]

yes it litteraly means 'rebirth' and Renaissance actually started from the 18th century, not long before the French 'Revolution'... Rome was both a republican democracy and a democratic republic too, and it led to chaos... in topic I guess restablishing capitalism was the main purpose anyway...

 

The Roman Church was capitalist and piled-up fortunes at the expense of states and the believer, so capitalism had well survived in a ‘sacred’ form since the fall of the Roman Empire…

Edited June 10 by chud

[Campion]

2 hours ago, chud said:

yes it litteraly means 'rebirth' and Renaissance actually started from the 18th century, not long before the French 'Revolution'... Rome was both a republican democracy and a democratic republic too, and it led to chaos... in topic I guess restablishing capitalism was the main purpose anyway...

 

The Roman Church was capitalist and piled-up fortunes at the expense of states and the believer, so capitalism had well survived in a ‘sacred’ form since the fall of the Roman Empire…

 

Are you perhaps thinking of the Enlightenment in the 18th C? The Renaissance was a few hundred years earlier in the 15th-16th C at the end of the middle ages and start of the modern age. But it did involve a remembering or rebirth of classical Roman and Greek culture. The Catholic church was challenged round that time with the Reformation and Protestants who took up capitalism with enthusiasm. All part of a progression I think. 

[chud]

The exact period of what's called Renaissance has always been subject to debate, but the one you're meaning applies to arts. There has been a political 'Renaissance' consisting in restoring the Roman political and economic system of which capitalism was part, and that was achieved with the French 'Revolution'. It's not a topic I studied in depth but it seems obvious to me.

 

World wars started again too like those once run by the Roman Empire, and i don't know if conscription existed in Rome but it appeared in Europe at the 19th century. For my part I won't call all that progress but rather a regression or decadence, so we'll have to agree to disagree... : )

 

Most what's told in school books about the Middle-age and Feudalism is propaganda letting think they were times of barbarism, slavery and terror but it's not true. The terror term itself had never existed until it was coined for the needs of Revolution.

 

 

[Campion]

5 hours ago, chud said:

For my part I won't call all that progress but rather a regression or decadence, so we'll have to agree to disagree... : )

 

I mean progress in terms of an agenda being rolled out rather than things getting better    I remember a theory about the renaissance being influenced by Christians coming into contact with Muslims in the middle east, and getting copies of Arabic translations of some ancient Greek texts. So the middle ages wasn't only a story of Christian-Muslim conflict but there was some academic contact too ... not something I have looked deeply into, but it does smell like some secret society or even Templar involvement. 

 

Then later on the move to the Enlightenment, which was heavily influenced on - or by - secret societies like the Freemasons and Bavarian Illuminati. It was like an intellectual and political new order. 

 

Edited June 11 by Campion

[chud]

It would sound logic that the Enlightenment have to do with the Illuminati and something occult, but be sure the Church had stored and saved in its safes every piece of the Roman heritage that could be reused one day.

 

 

You may find the capitalist name as a generic term to merely define a wealthy person way sooner in France, but I browsed the French Bibliothèque Nationale website and there isn’t one book published before the 1780’s that refers to capitalism as an economic system. To my sense it means that the restoration of capitalism and financial slavery was the main and actual purpose of the French Revolution under the cover of freeing the people from the ‘tyranny’ of kings.

 

AFAIN capitalism doesn’t just mean accumulating wealth by all kinds of abuses, but also ensuring it’s made unaffordable to the layman and the uninitiated. They just replaced aristocrats by ‘elites’.

 

 

 

 

 

[pi3141]

Currys' turnaround strategy pays off as group looks to automation and offshoring to beat Reeves' tax hikes

By JANE DENTON
Updated: 09:37 03 Jul 2025

 

 

Link - https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-14871049/Currys-turnaround-strategy-pays-group-looks-automation-offshoring-beat-Reeves-tax-hikes.html

 

 

They are proud now to be offshoring so as to avoid paying taxes in the UK where they do business. 

 

So if all uk business follow suit,and I imagine Starmer's EU reset will make it easier for UK companies to offshore to EU, if all our companies do that to avoid paying taxes in to our country, how will that affect our economy?

 

It will obliterate it.

 

If we have companies operating in our country and paying as little as possible back into our system, we won't have a economy will we. 

 

I really want to offshore myself so I can avoid taxes.

 

Be an offshored freelancer, pay no tax and claim vat back on various things. 

 

Working for an offshore company that pays no tax and only rents it's business units and maintains it with outsourced cleaners and staff working for an offshore maintenance company.

 

 

 

Edited July 3 by pi3141