DescentBB

Spidey wrote:Oh, no they weren’t.

I’m sorry, was the context limited to nuclear strikes, if so then you are correct.

that was Sigma's assertion, that we had plans to use nukes on Russia after Japan.

so, sigma, you dismissed my complete rebuttal of your claim regarding Chernobyl versus BOTH Japanese bombs combined, and you produced ZERO to counter the claim, just a glib remark. Why don't you take your transparent hatred of the US and love of forum trolling elsewhere?

Slick, tell you frankly, you could just turn to the bank, where profitable to invest money? Without the shade of a mafia? I think it would be safer for all.

Vander wrote:

Ferno wrote:thanks for showing a complete lack of understanding of what the insurance industry is based on.

Pooling risk isn't itself "socialist." It's the ownership of the capital backing the pool that determines this. If that capital is not owned by the insured, it's not "socialist."

Pooling risk does, however, share similar theoretical benefits with "socialism" in some regards. Smoothing inequity for communal benefit, for example.

Ah, see, you're getting the modern implementation and idea of insurance mixed up with the fundamental, historical base of insurance. While it is true that it's now a capitalist venture (make a profit, answer to shareholders), the sense that the many support the few when disaster strikes draw its roots from a socialist idea.

Just had a talk with a buddy who works in the industry about this, actually.

I guess you could label anything a socialist organization. General Motors is a socialist entity because the workers are working together to make the company profitable so they keep getting paychecks and benefits.

the sense that the many support the few when disaster strikes draw its roots from a socialist idea

That concept is as old as humanity itself, and it very well may be that the idea was intergraded into a socialist political philosophy, but they sure as hell didn’t come up with the idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance

woodchip wrote:I guess you could label anything a socialist organization. General Motors is a socialist entity because the workers are working together to make the company profitable so they keep getting paychecks and benefits.

No, no, woodchip, pure socialism is not the pursuit of super-profits, it is the desire for self-sufficiency. Socialism can be compared with the wisdom of ancient people - don't kill more animals than you can eat.

Spidey wrote:

the sense that the many support the few when disaster strikes draw its roots from a socialist idea

That concept is as old as humanity itself, and it very well may be that the idea was intergraded into a socialist political philosophy, but they sure as hell didn’t come up with the idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance

If you go back far enough, you'll see both draw from similar ideas. But they weren't called socialism or insurance then because the word wasn't invented then.